Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

SHELL-MEX AND B.P. (LONDON AIRPORT PIPELINE) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

(By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Constituency Elected Members' Organisation (Delegation)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his talks with the delegation representing the elected members of the Kenya Legislative Council.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions were reached in his discussions with African and Asian members of the Kenya Legislative Council.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the outcome of his talks with the Kenya elected members' delegation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the agreed communiqué which was issued after my right hon. Friend's meetings with the delegation of the Constituency Elected Members' Organisation.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is general appreciation of the friendly way in which the Secretary of State received this delegation from Kenya, but can he tell us whether the constitutional conference will be held before a general election takes place in Kenya and whether the state of emergency there will soon be withdrawn?

Mr. Amery: That raises somewhat different questions. The state of emergency is not an easy thing to withdraw just like that. We all desire to see it withdrawn, but the Governor has to distinguish between political advance and maintenance of law and order.

Mrs. White: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what consideration is being given to the expert advice for which the delegation asked? In particular, will he ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind the desirability of associating some African constitutional lawyer, possibly from Nigeria, with such a body?

Mr. Amery: I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming the much better atmosphere there is now in Kenya, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if this can be carried a little further, not only by ending the emergency, but by releasing the detained and rusticated Africans? Can he say whether the Africans are to have a national political organisation?

Mr. Amery: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), we must distinguish between political advance and the maintenance of order.
Following is the text of the communiqué:
The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd, has met the Kenya delegation of Constituency Elected Members of the Legislative Council twice—on 27th April and 30th April.
Among the matters discussed were the Secretary of State's speech in Parliament on 22nd April. The delegation noted with appreciation the aims of Her Majesty's Government's policy as outlined in the Secretary of State's speech though they reserved their position on a number of details. In relation to the forthcoming conference, however, they asked for an assurance that no subject would be debarred from consideration. The Secretary of State confirmed that this was his intention, but


emphasised that Her Majesty's Government had not altered their views concerning the basic principles which they felt should continue to govern Kenya's future constitutional advance.
The delegation urged that there should be no undue delay in convening the conference and that, before the conference, experts should visit Kenya to ascertain the views of the various groups and subsequently report in confidence to the conference itself. The Secretary of State noted the views of the delegation but said it would be necessary for him to hear the views of other interested parties on these matters and then to discuss them with the Governor before decisions were taken on the timing of the conference and the form of expert advice.
The delegation also urged the need for an early ending of the emergency restrictions, including those operating on the formation of country-wide political associations and the holding of meetings. The Secretary of State noted the points made by the delegation, assured them that he would discuss them with the Governor and added that, since the emergency restrictions were solely designed to maintain the improvement in public order, both he and the Governor were anxious to see them removed as soon as it was clear that this would not prejudice that improvement by encouraging a trend towards violence or unconstitutional action.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE

Municipal Council

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Singapore Government have taken over many of the principal powers possessed by the municipal council of the city; what was the reason for this action; and when it is proposed to restore powers to the elected municipal council.

Mr. J. Amery: Under the Singapore Local Government Ordinance, 1957, the responsible Minister may, if it appears to him necessary or desirable in the public interest, transfer to himself any function conferred upon a local authority, order an inquiry to be held and, in the light of the report of that inquiry, make such further order as he may think fit. In exercise of this power certain functions, mainly those concerned with the handling of staff, have been transferred from the city council; and a Commission of Inquiry has been appointed to investigate irregularities alleged against it. This Commission has not yet reported.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the confusion which apparently exists in Singapore about the taking over by the Government of the powers of the local authority, will

the hon. Gentleman make a statement on the whole position on the island?

Mr. Amery: I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that it is impossible for my right hon. Friend or myself to comment on this matter until the Commission of Inquiry has reported.

Malaya (Economic Integration)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations have taken place between the Singapore Government and that of the Federation of Malaya on the subject of economic integration of the two communities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Amery: I can, of course, speak only for Singapore. There is continuous consultation between the two Governments on matters of common economic interest, but I am not aware of any discussion of integration as such.

Mr. Awbery: Although the Minister is not able to speak for the Federation, he can, as representative of Singapore, approach the Federation. Because there is a need for unity between these two countries—the Federation and Singapore —which are a natural unit, cannot he approach the Federation with a view to bringing about such a unity?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member will appreciate that some of these matters are election issues at the present time in Singapore, and it would be unwise for me to comment on them. It has always been the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government that the future relationship of Singapore and the Federation are primarily matters for the people and the Governments of the two territories to determine.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it the case that these matters are the subject of an election at the present time and that all the major parties standing in the election are in favour of close economic unity with the Federation of Malaya?

Mr. Amery: All parties, I am sure, wish to see most continuous and close consultation between the two elements. There is a great deal of discussion going on in Singapore at the present time, and it would be much wiser if Ministerial spokesmen did not comment on these questions at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Vermin

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose authority animals are designated as vermin in Tanganyika.

Mr. J. Amery: Under the provisions of the Tanganyika Fauna Conservation Ordinance the game warden may declare any animal to be vermin.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister aware that animal lovers and naturalists are becoming alarmed by the destruction of the fauna in these parts of Africa, and that, according to my information, hippopotamus, zebra, monkey, wild pig and a great many other species are now designated as vermin? Is he aware that not only can very cruel methods be used to get rid of them, but that this encourages their destruction to the point of exhaustion? Will he look further into this matter?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. We are very well aware of the problem raised by the hon. Member, but I would remind him that some of the animals designated as vermin which he has mentioned are so designated only in certain areas of the Territory, and not in the whole of it.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this part of the world, there is uneasiness about the preservation of fauna in this part of Africa, that everything is not absolutely all right, but that great suffering and destruction of animal life are caused by uncontrolled hunting by natives? May I ask him whether his Department will institute careful inquiries to see if everything is as satisfactory as he appears to think it is?

Mr. Amery: We have been looking at the matter again very recently, but if my hon. Friend has any particular points to bring to our attention, we will be very glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Mr. Harry Nkumbula (Governor's Broadcast)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what evidence the Governor of Northern Rhodesia based the allegation he made in his official

broadcast of 12th March, that Mr. Harry Nkumbula had left the Accra Conference before it ended after disagreeing with certain of the decisions taken.

Mr. J. Amery: Mr. Nkumbula's own public statements about serious differences he had had with Mr. Kaunda and also Dr. Hastings Banda. The Governor was misinformed that Mr. Nkumbula left Accra before the end of the conference: he did not do so but did leave before Mr. Kaunda, who stayed behind at Accra for a time.

Mr. Swingler: I accept the acknowledgment that the Governor made a misstatement in this particular case. Obviously, at this remarkable congress of African leaders, there was some difference of opinion expressed, but does not the Under-Secretary think that this "divide and rule" game amongst African leaders in Northern Rhodesia is a disreputable business, and would not it have been very much better and more profitable for the Governor if, instead of making a misinformed statement, he had tried to understand the genuine motives underlying the actions of the African leaders?

Mr. Amery: I think the Governor's references to differences were perfectly legitimate.

Zambia African Congress

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what account was taken by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, in deciding to ban the Zambia African Congress, of the resolution passed at the Accra Conference, to which he referred in his broadcast on the banning of the Congress on 12th March.

Mr. J. Amery: The Governor's decision was based solely on the actual intimidation practised by, and violence planned by, the Zambia Congress. He referred to the Accra Conference in his speech as part of the general background.

Mr. Swingler: Would not the Under-Secretary agree to present to the House the evidence, which has so far been unpresented, apart from charging three or four people with disorderly behaviour, of the violence plan of the Zambia Congress? In view of what he has said about the Accra Conference, has he studied


the literature of the African leaders' conference, and the fact that the agenda included a very specific reference to the fact that it stood for non-violence? Does he realise that that was the theme throughout the literature of the Accra Conference?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member will have noticed that the previous position of strict non-violence has been somewhat modified in Northern Rhodesia, and that the plans of the Zambia Congress appear to come closely into line with the modified non-violence resolution of the Accra Conference.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to end the rustication of leaders of the Zambia African Congress in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. J. Amery: The restriction of movement will remain in force in each case until the circumstances in which restriction is necessary cease to obtain.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Minister aware that no evidence whatever has been produced that these leaders were planning violence? Will he ask the police authorities in Northern Rhodesia whether it is not a fact that, at the moment the arrests were made, there were documents in those offices, to be distributed, appealing against violence? In view of the fact that these arrests took place at the time of the election and that the election is over, will he now release these men?

Mr. Amery: Our understanding of the situation is rather different from that of the hon. Member.

African National Congress (Petition)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what demands were made in the petition received by him from the Northern Rhodesian African National Congress on 13th April; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. J. Amery: To scrap the present Constitution of Northern Rhodesia; to institute talks immediately for a new constitution based on universal adult franchise; and to grant immediate self-government and independence. My right hon. Friend received the petition only on 28th April. He has not as yet replied.

Mr. Stonehouse: As the African National Congress received most of the African votes cast in the recent election, and undoubtedly represents quite a large section of opinion in Northern Rhodesia, will the Under-Secretary undertake to consider this representation seriously, particularly in view of the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the present Constitution?

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend always considers all petitions seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Education

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children were attending school in Nyasaland immediately before the declaration of the state of emergency; and how many are attending at present.

Mr. J. Amery: Nyasaland Government records do not show how many children were attending school immediately before the declaration of the state of emergency; but on 31st October, 1958, which was the beginning of the school year, 270,902 children were registered. School attendance at present is 270,102.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present state of education in Nyasaland and on the Government's plans for keeping the schools adequately manned with teachers.

Mr. J. Amery: The Governor is doing everything possible to maintain the standard of education in Nyasaland during the present difficult time and to bring about improvements where possible. As regards the provision of teachers, training is conducted at 10 centres catering for 946 trainee teachers and this number will increase to 1,100 in October. Plans have also been prepared for further expansion of teacher training facilities.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the substantial number of teachers detained under the emergency regulations, and the very great importance of maintaining continued education, would the Minister consider recommending the Governor to release those teachers who are detained unless there are charges that can be brought against them?

Mr. Amery: The word "substantial" is a matter of opinion, of course, but only 19 teachers have been detained out of a total of 3,138.

Unemployment

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the growing unemployment in Nyasaland, particularly in the building and civil engineering trades of Blantyre Limbe; and what steps he is taking in this matter to help the Nyasaland Government to deal with the situation.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir. The unemployment is partly due to the completion of several large Government contracts in Blantyre and Limbe and partly to the current trade recession in the Federation. The recent deteriorating political atmosphere has also checked private investment.
I share the Governor's hope that the measures recently taken will encourage its resumption. The Nyasaland and Federal Governments between them expect to place contracts to the value of some half million pounds during the next few months for public works. They are fully alive to the need for providing employment opportunities.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the only argument ever adduced for Nyasaland joining the Federation was an economic one, and that now we have this territory moving into a slump? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that not only Africans but European and Asian communities think that they are Cinderellas compared with more fashionable Southern Rhodesia? Besides public works, why do we not begin the scheme for the Shire Valley dam, because unless we provide electricity and electric power we cannot contemplate any massive injection of secondary industries there, and, obviously, the Africans will not get jobs?

Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put on the Order Paper a Question on that subject. It would be quite wrong to give the impression, which I think his supplementary question did a little bit, that the Federation was no longer giving economic advantage to Nyasaland. It still is, to a very great degree.

Mr. Johnson: I did not say that, but there are 5,000 unemployed in these

places, and European mechanics are leaving to go back to Southern Rhodesia. This is a serious position, which shakes the confidence of the people, whether Africans, Europeans or Asians, in the future of Nyasaland.

Mr. Amery: I told the hon. Member that we were well aware of the problem and are trying to meet it. I only commented on the implications of his supplementary question.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that since Federation the Federal Government have assumed very substantial financial obligations with respect to Nyasaland?

Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed, Sir.

African Detainees

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have been detained under the emergency regulations in Nyasaland; how many have been subsequently released; and when it is proposed to charge or release those still in detention.

Mr. J. Amery: A total of 851 Africans have been detained under detention orders; of whom 245 have since been released.
Of those remaining in detention, charges have been or will be laid where there is evidence of their having committed a criminal offence.
Detainees are being released when the Governor is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to exercise control over them for the purpose of maintaining public order.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that we totally disagree with this method of handling the situation? Does not the Minister realise that as long as he leaves large sections of the African population leaderless, all he will do is encourage the growth of more extremist African leadership? Why does he not do the sensible thing and either immediately charge those against whom criminal charges can be brought or release the others in order that they may re-assume their rightful positions?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has disagreed with our handling of the matter throughout. Had he handled it or had we followed his advice, there might well have been bloodshed on a very large scale.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister realise that the bloodshed which has been committed so far is that over forty Africans have lost their lives? Does he not further realise that if his Government had not committed the incredible folly of cramming Nyasaland into the Federation in the first place there would have been no lives lost?

Mr. Amery: I am convinced that had we followed the hon. Member's advice the loss of life would have been counted not in tens but in hundreds.

Workers, Mlanje District (Wages)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the average monthly wage of workers in the Mlanje District of Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Amery: The average basic earnings for a 26-day employment ticket amount to £2 14s. 2d.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that the individual share of the collective fine is almost a month's wages for these people? Is he aware that when the police burned down houses which it was suspected contained looted goods, they also burned down a house containing many bales of clothing which belonged to another Indian and which had nothing to do with this matter at all? Are the Africans of the Mlanje District being asked also to pay for that?

Mr. Amery: I will look into that incident. I emphasise that the Governor has in many cases reduced the fine imposed so that it does not even cover the cost of the damage done, because he has taken account of the conditions of the people in the area.

Collective Fines

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will stop the collection of fines imposed on communities in Nyasaland while the Commission is investigating in Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Amery: No, Sir.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that in reply to previous Questions we have found that fines of over £30,000 have been imposed in collective fines on the people of Nyasaland, whose standard of living is miserably inadequate? Does he not realise that while we hope that the

Commission which has been sent out will do good work, he is vitiating all that good work by the bitterness which he is engendering by this shocking system of collective fines on the very poorest of the people?

Mr. Amery: I do not think that the fines were excessive in relation to the disturbances.

Government Employees (Dismissal)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans who are Government employees in Nyasaland have been dismissed from their posts since 3rd March; and for what reasons.

Mr. J. Amery: Nineteen Nyasaland Government employees have been dismissed since 3rd March. Three were dismissed after conviction on criminal charges of theft, assault and communication of police matters to unauthorised persons, three for repeated drunkenness on duty, five for refusing to perform their duties, and eight for summary offences against police discipline.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that, pending the conclusion of the Devlin Commission investigation into the allegations of the massacre plot made by the Government, no African will be dismissed from Government employment on the ground that he belongs to the African National Congress?

Mr. Amery: I cannot possibly give any assurance to the hon. Lady that no one will be dismissed who has in any sense infringed the law.

European Civil Servants (Expatriate Pay)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many European civil servants in Nyasaland, receiving expatriate pay, are expatriates.

Mr. J. Amery: Nine hundred and forty-four, but I should perhaps add that eight of these are children of parents who settled for life in Nyasaland.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the Under-Secretary of State therefore aware that these persons who are the children of Europeans who settled in Nyasaland are as much locally domiciled as are the Africans in


the equivalent level of the Civil Service, but who nevertheless are receiving hundreds of £s a year less? Is not this, therefore, a contradiction of the statement made by Lord Home when he returned from Salisbury recently in which he said that under federation Africans will get equal treatment when they are equally qualified with Europeans?

Mr. Amery: I am not quite sure about the validity of the hon. Lady's first assertion. I think that some of the eight out of the 944 were recruited in this country after living in this country for a number of years, but I am at present making inquiries into that. In any case, looking to the future, it seems to me that this is a matter which will arise for consideration in connection with current proposals for a locally based Civil Service in Nyasaland, to which I referred in my supplementary answer to the hon. Lady on 28th April.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Under-Secretary aware that he has enunciated a new principle? Do I gather that former Colonial civil servants who decide in future to base their homes in the Territory are still to be regarded as expatriates and that they will go on receiving expatriate allowance? Is not that a departure from the time-honoured principle?

Mr. Amery: I think that the right hon. Member has misunderstood my supplementary answer. If he will look at it in HANSARD tomorrow, the right hon. Gentleman will see the correct effect of it.

Mr. Griffiths: I did not misunderstand the hon. Under-Secretary's statement. I gathered the Under-Secretary to state that there were so many hundred expatriates, eight of whom were those who had decided to make their permanent home in the Territory. If that is not what the Under-Secretary said, at least it is what I understood him to say and perhaps he will correct it.

Mr. Amery: I said that eight of those were the children of parents who had decided to make their permanent home in Nyasaland. I went an to say to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that I have not been able to discover whether in each case these people were living in Nyasaland at the time they joined the service.

Africans (Arrests)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans in Nyasaland have been arrested since 3rd March; what were the charges against them; and what sentences they received.

Mr. J. Amery: The Governor has informed me that it will be necessary to circulate all out-stations in order to obtain this information. This is being done and as soon as I receive the information it will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that, according to the Observer of ten days ago, there is an extensive drive now going on in Nyasaland to stamp out the African National Congress? Is not this short-sighted criminal lunacy, in view of the fact that the Devlin Commission has not yet reported on whether a massacre plot exists, and the African National Congress is the only constitutional means of political organisation open to the Africans?

Mr. Amery: I advise the hon. Lady not to base herself exclusively on reports in the Observer.

Mr. Paget: Do not the hon. Gentleman's replies as to the action being taken against the Nyasaland Government put the Devlin Commission in something like the position of the Red Queen's Court—sentence first, verdict afterwards?

Incident, Nkata Bay

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what weapons were used when twenty Africans were killed at Nkata Bay; and what previous action was taken to disperse the people.

Mr. J. Amery: A Sten gun and rifles.
The District Commissioner spent nearly two and a half hours trying to persuade the crowd to disperse. When the crowd reached the dock gates and it became evident that they had no intention of dispersing, the District Commission read out the Riot Act, but this had no effect. It was only after the crowd had broken into the port area that firearms were used.

Miss Herbison: Does not that reply show how shocking the treatment accorded to the Africans was? Is the


Under-Secretary aware that my information is that those Africans were completely unarmed? Are not other attempts usually made besides reading the Riot Act? Is it not the fact that sometimes a shot is fired into the air rather than using a Sten gun, which kills twenty people at one burst?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Lady will not want to mislead the House. As I said, the District Commissioner spent nearly two hours trying to persuade the crowd to disperse. He had only six or seven soldiers with him. It was a large crowd. If the hon. Lady had been in the position of the District Commissioner, I am not sure that she would have acted differently.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the Under-Secretary of State deny that the crowd was unarmed? Why was not tear gas used to disperse the crowd?

Mr. Amery: I do not even know if tear gas was available at that point. I am not clear that the crowd was unarmed in the strict sense of the word.

Emergency (Cost)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the estimated cost to date of the state of emergency in Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Amery: One hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds is the estimated cost to the Nyasaland Government.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether that includes the cost of erecting the detention camps? What will be the cost to the Federal Government, and in future will Ministers add that cost to the total financial benefits which the Nyasaland people are supposed to be receiving through Federation?

Mr. Amery: It is not for me to comment on the Federal aspect. I will look into the problem whether the cost includes the erection of detention camps.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR

Committee on Education (Report)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the local committee on educational problems

in Zanzibar under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Mr. P. A. P. Robertson, has yet issued its Report; and what consideration this has been given by the British Resident.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir. The Report, which was laid before the Legislative Council on 18th March, is now being considered in Zanzibar. I have placed copies in the Library.

Mr. Johnson: While welcoming in the Report the fact that there will be a new secondary school—the first secondary school—for Zanzibar, may I ask the Under-Secretary to push forward the scheme for the further expansion of teacher training in Zanzibar, and the improvement of the whole status of secondary education for African boys and girls in the island?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly note what the hon. Member has said.

Constitution

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date for the next elections for the Legislative Council of Zanzibar Protectorate; and whether it is his intention to begin talks with the various political parties and organisations concerned with the object of issuing a White Paper upon the next stage of constitutional advance.

Mr. J. Amery: The next elections for the Zanzibar Legislative Council will be held about the middle of 1960. The British Resident announced on 16th April with the approval of His Highness the Sultan and my right hon. Friend certain constitutional changes. These include the appointment of two more representative members to Executive Council, an increase in the number of constituencies—and a consequent increase in the number of elected members in Legislative Council—and reductions in the age qualifications for electors. I am circulating full details of these changes in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: While we welcome this advance, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that it has been essentially a Government of the civil service in Zanzibar, that Zanzibar is a harmonious society and community, and that the people will welcome this step forward?


Does he contemplate giving the vote to women in Zanzibar, because there is much feeling about that question?

Mr. Amery: At the moment there is a committee considering the whole question of the status of women in Zanzibar.
Following is the information:
The following constitutional changes were announced by the British Resident on 16th April:

1 An increase in the number of representative members on the Executive Council from three to five, and the intention that at least two should be elected representative members of the Legislative Council. One of the new members will represent the interests of Pemba.
2 An increase in the number of constituencies from six to eight making five constituencies in Zanzibar and three in Pemba. This will raise the number of representative members to he elected to Legislative Council from six to eight, and the number of appointed representative members will be reduced from six to four.
3 A reduction in the minimum age qualification for electors from 25 years to 21 years.
4 A reduction in the minimum age for exemption from the literacy qualification from 40 years to 30 years.
5 The appointment of a committee to consider the question of the extension of the franchise to women.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Political Organisations and Newspapers (Ban)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given to the request by Archbishop Makarios to the Governor that the ban on political organisations and newspapers in Cyprus should be lifted.

Mr. J. Amery: I have at present nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 16th April.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that there is this better situation in Cyprus, with hope for the future, is it not desirable that when Archbishop Makarios, as representative of the Cypriot people, makes this request for lifting these bans on organisations and newspapers, the liberal philosophy of this country should respond to that appeal?

Mr. Amery: I have nothing to add at the moment to what I have just said.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Railway Workers

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is intended to implement the trade union scheme for the advancement of African railway workers in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which has been agreed by the Federal Government; when such implementation is anticipated; and what are the reasons for the delay.

Mr. J. Amery: I do not know of any such agreed scheme.
The remainder of the Question would not therefore seem to arise.

Mr. Hynd: Is not the Minister aware that a scheme has been submitted for the advancement of Africans on the railways, that is has been discussed in public by the Minister for Railways, that he intimated a few weeks ago that he would have a Government meeting to discuss it on 2nd April, and that the excuse which he gives for not implementing it is that this would mean similar arrangements for other industries? Is not the Minister aware of that? If not, will he make some inquiries and let us know what is the position and why there has been a delay?

Mr. Amery: The railways are a Federal matter for which I am not responsible.

Mr. Hynd: On a point of order. The Minister has referred to the fact that the Constitution provided for the railways to be a Federal matter, but this is a trade union matter.

Mr. Amery: The Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are responsible for legislation on trade union matters and their consequent administration of the law. They are not responsible for the negotiating of agreements between the Rhodesian railways, which are in public ownership under the Federal Government, and their employees.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Refugees

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the approach of a World Refugee Year, what steps he proposes to take to help in the rehabilitation of the large number of refugees in Hong Kong.

Mr. J. Amery: Her Majesty's Government are contributing £100,000 to the World Refugee Year which they sponsored and very warmly support. Part of the proceeds of the World Refugee Year is intended for Hong Kong refugees.

Mr. Rankin: While I appreciate the Government's interest in this matter, may I ask whether the Minister realises that if we take the £100,000 in relation to Hong Kong alone, it represents 2s. per head for the year? Does the Minister expect us to believe that this sum expended in Hong Kong would have any material effect on the welfare of the refugees there?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member will realise that the Hong Kong Government are spending about one-third of their budget on refugees. We take the view that this is an international problem in which we are entitled to ask for support from others.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that most good-minded people in this country will be deeply disturbed to find that all the Government propose to give to the World Refugee Year is £100,000? In view of the fact that much of this will be spent in Hong Kong, will he press upon the Government that the overwhelming majority of people in this country would welcome a much more generous contribution in keeping with our international status?

Mr. Amery: It will be open to the public to subscribe to the World Refugee Year Fund. We have made available £4 to £4.5 million since 1945 on such special aid.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINICA

Colonial Development Corporation (Operations)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has yet been decided to extend the estate operations of the Colonial Development Corporation in the island of Dominica, in view of the land that is available.

Mr. J. Amery: In addition to its estate at Melville Hall, the Corporation is, I understand, now extending its operations to Castle Bruce.

Mr. Blenkinsop: How quickly is this development being carried out, bearing in mind that this area has lain idle for several years waiting for approach roads to be built?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member a time-table.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Electricity Board (Capital Requirements)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the capital requirements of the Uganda Electricity Board.

Mr. J. Amery: My right hon. Friend has recently received from the Uganda Government a revised estimate of the Uganda Electricity Board's capital needs up to 1961 and these are at present being studied.
At the end of 1958 the Board had advances from the Uganda Government of some £6.5 million, which require to be funded, and it is seeking £4.67 million for the three years from 1959 to 1961.

Mr. Willey: As the Board lacks the capital to expand distribution and also to make full use of the power available from the Owen Falls, will the Under-Secretary of State see that the Secretary of State looks sympathetically at this application?

Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed. With the passing of the new Colonial Development and Welfare Act it will be possible for Her Majesty's Government to make an Exchequer loan to the Uganda Government if market finance cannot be secured.

Situation

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Uganda.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present political situation in Uganda and the position of the Buganda Lukiko, and the action taken by the Uganda Government following the recent disturbances.

Mr. J. Amery: A Constitutional Committee is at present taking evidence from


local governments, political parties and individuals in Uganda on the introduction of common roll elections in 1961 and related constitutional issues.
I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of my right hon. Friend's reply to a letter from His Highness the Kabaka to Her Majesty The Queen forwarding a memorandum from the Buganda Lukiko seeking cessation of the Buganda Agreements.
The position of the Lukiko is as defined in the Buganda Agreement, 1955.
Because of acts of violence and intimidation which have occurred as a result of a trade boycott organised by the Uganda National Movement and the likelihood of further disturbances, the Uganda Government has prohibited meetings of more than 250 persons without permission in the Districts of Mengo, Masaka, Busoga, Mbale Township, Bukedi and Bugisu.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of a statement issued by the Uganda Government on 24th April.

Mr. Willey: Will the Under-Secretary say what response there has been to the Secretary of State's letter to the Kabaka?

Mr. Amery: None as yet, that I know of.

Mr. Stonehouse: While agreeing with the Secretary of State's reply to the Buganda Lukiko, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State if he is aware that there is very great concern about the action taken by the Uganda police in dealing with the disturbances last Tuesday? If I arrange to send to the Under-Secretary a copy of some allegations which have been made concerning the actions of the Uganda police, will he arrange for an inquiry to be held?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly look into any allegations the hon. Member is prepared to send to me.
Following is the Statement:
On 10th April the Protectorate Government announced that because of the violence and intimidation which occurred as a result of the trade boycott organised by the Uganda National Movement, and of meetings of the Movement. the Governor had decided to gazette the Mengo and Masaka Districts under Section 34A of the Police Ordinance; as a result no meetings of more than 250 persons can be held in those districts without a permit from the proper authority.
It is now clear that the organisers of the Uganda National Movement are turning their

attention to other areas, especially the Busoga District and the Mbale Township District; and unless steps are taken to prevent it, intimidation and violence are likely to occur in these Districts as they occurred in Mengo and Masaka. The Governor has therefore decided to extend the restriction on the holding of meetings to the Busoga and Mbale Township Districts, and has declared both of them to be gazetted areas under Section 34A of the Police Ordinance by notice published in a Gazette Extraordinary today. Meetings of more than 250 persons in these Districts can therefore only be held with the permission of the District Commissioner concerned.
The Government wishes to reiterate that it wilt not hesitate to take further and more drastic action, if that becomes necessary to preserve law and order, and the rights of the individual citizen to live his normal life without molestation; but the Government still hopes that public opinion, good sense and goodwill will prevail.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Leprosy (B.C.G. Vaccination)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are prima facie grounds upon which is based the hypothesis that vaccination by B.C.G. may prevent the incidence of leprosy and whether he will institute a pilot scheme of vaccination in one or more of the Colonies to ascertain the value, or otherwise, of this procedure.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir. I understand that pilot schemes of vaccination are already in progress in the Federation of Nigeria and Uganda.

Dr. Stross: May I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the statement he has just made? It is obviously reassuring. There is everything to gain and nothing to lose by this method of investigation. Will the Under-Secretary say whether he has any preliminary information to give the House as to the way these schemes are going and how many people are being vaccinated?

Mr. Amery: I have not any information as to the numbers. I am advised that it may take several years before we cart truly judge the efficaciousness of this cure.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Public Order Ordinance

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will place in the House a copy of the Public


Order Ordinance passed in the Legislative Council of the Seychelles in March of this year; and whether he will make a statement giving the reasons for this measure being brought forward at this time.

Mr. J. Amery: Copies of the Ordinance to which the hon. Member refers are in the Library of the House. The Ordinance results from a general review of the arrangements in existence in Seychelles for maintaining law and order. It has been in preparation for over a year and its introduction at the present time has no special significance.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Governor has now taken powers which prevent ordinary Seychellois wearing a tie of the wrong colour without his permission? In view of the extraordinary powers taken, will the Under-Secretary indicate why they should be wanted at this time?

Mr. Amery: As I think that the hon. Member was informed in the Seychelles, with the exception of the provisions regarding curfew and the restriction of liquor sales the Ordinance follows closely the provisions of the United Kingdom Public Order Act, 1936. I have not been so far aware that in this country the colour of the ties we wear can be dictated to us.

Medical Officer of Health (Reports)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the report issued by the Medical Officer of Health in the Seychelles in 1957, and 1958, respectively.

Mr. J. Amery: I will gladly place copies of these reports in the Library of the House as soon as I can. The report for 1958 is not, however, yet completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECORDERS, MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Attorney-General how far the rules, which prevent High Court Judges making political speeches, will apply to judges of the recently created Crown Courts at Manchester and Liverpool.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): In the opinion of my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, the ordinary understanding that Her Majesty's Judges do not state their views in public on political matters applies to the Recorders of Manchester and Liverpool.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of that reply, will the Attorney-General take the necessary steps to acquaint the judge in the Liverpool Crown Court with the fact that it is most unwise for him to state in public his opinions of the Welfare State and of working-class women working, as he will quite probably have to adjudicate in a case arising out of such matters?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I should allow a reply to that supplementary question. If the hon. Lady wishes to make any accusation against the judge it should be done in the proper way, and not by Question and Answer. She should put down a Motion.

Mrs. Braddock: I am not making an allegation, Mr. Speaker. I am simply asking the Attorney-General to draw the learned judge's attention to the situation, and to rules that apply to him as well as to other judges.

The Attorney-General: I have no doubt that the learned recorder will take note of the reply I have given today.

Mrs. Braddock: I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Building Research (Standing Conference)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that the multiplicity of architectural research organisations which exist in this country make for confusion and expense in building; and whether he will consider setting up a department as is done in Holland and Sweden for the purpose of sifting and classifying technical information and presenting it in a standard form for easy filing.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The Government have for some time felt that there was room for improvement in the co-ordination of building research. It therefore decided that all research should be under the D. S. I. R


As recently announced, I shall not, therefore, re-appoint my Advisory Council on Building Research and Development. In its place there will be a Standing Conference on Building Research, which will be under the aegis of the Lord President of the Council.
The dissemination of technical information will continue to be my responsibility. I am discussing with the industry the many problems involved.

Mr. Janner: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask if he is satisfied that the new set-up will provide facilities for architects quickly to obtain available information so as to cut down the expense on building, and provide more efficient buildings?

Mr. Molson: That is exactly what I am at present discussing with those concerned in the building industry—architects, builders and quantity surveyors.

Crown Jewels (Rehousing)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works what progress has been made with the proposal to rehouse the Crown Jewels so as to enable all visitors to the Tower of London an opportunity to view them in reasonable comfort.

Mr. Molson: Work is continuing on the preparation of proposals for rehousing the Crown Jewels in the hope that funds may be found for the work in two or three years' time.

Royal Opera House (Maintenance Work)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works to what extent he has authorised delays in maintenance works at the Royal Opera House during the past three years.

Mr. Molson: The only authority given to the Royal Opera House to delay any of the obligations under their lease concerned the external painting of the building, which was deferred from 1956 to 1957 so as to coincide with the centenary of the Opera House. This was done with the permission of the owners of the freehold of the property.

Mr. Jeger: Is not the Minister aware that, in page 3, the last annual report of the Royal Opera House states:
Year by year we have deferred important maintenance expenditure on this historic building "?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman look again at this to see if it is not possible for the Ministry of Works to take over the Royal Opera House in order to preserve it, and keep it in proper condition?

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman has already raised his second point with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend then said upon the subject. As to maintenance, I have no responsibility for the publication of this report, or for the statements contained therein, but I am satisfied that no essential maintenance of the structure of the Royal Opera House has been deferred.

Mr. Jeger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and the obvious dissention between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Works over the meaning of the words "essential" and "important", I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Earl of Balfour (Memorial)

Sir G. Nicholson: asked the Minister of Works what progress has been made with the arrangements for the memorial to the late Earl of Balfour.

Mr. Molson: I have now received the Report of the Committee of which my hon. Friend was a member, which was appointed under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), to advise me on the memorial to the late Earl of Balfour. The Committee has unanimously recommended that the memorial should take the form of a white marble statue of the Earl of Balfour, to be erected on the pedestal on the right-hand side of the Members' Entrance to the Inner Lobby now occupied by the statue of Sir William Harcourt. [Interruption.] The Committee further recommended the appointment of Mr. David McFall as the sculptor. The Government have decided to accept these recommendations. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Committee for the care with which it has carried out its task.

Sir G. Nicholson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will give pleasure to all students of history—and Mr. Balfour, as he at one time was, was a great thinker and


statesman—may I ask my right hon. Friend to take steps to ensure that the Members' Lobby is preserved for the statues of eminent Prime Ministers? Will he also try to see that a measure of uniformity in the stone and style of the statues is maintained?

Mr. Molson: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of certain noises made in various parts of the House while the Minister was answering, may I make it plain that this was an all-party Committee, and I think that the Leader of the Liberal Party as well as myself felt it appropriate that the statue of Lord Balfour should be placed in the Inner Lobby, as he was a very distinguished Prime Minister?

Mr. Molson: In view of the representative nature of the Committee, I had not expected that its recommendation would arouse the cries of dissent that it did.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In taking up its position, will the statue repudiate the claim of its predecessor—" We're all Socialists now"?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not that precisely why the statue of Lord Balfour is to replace that of Sir William Harcourt? Is not this a case of anti-Socialist bias on the part of the Government? And in any case, have we not enough statues in this place—are there not ancient monuments on the other side?

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it the intention that the statue of Sir William Harcourt should also remain on the same pedestal, or where is to go?

Mr. Molson: I propose to consult the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons on where it should be placed.

Royal Parks (Band Performances)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Works what arrangements are being made for band performances in the Royal Parks during the coming summer.

Mr. Molson: At weekends during the summer there will be regular band performances as in past years. From Mondays to Fridays I am making two changes in the arrangements. First, the season will start a little later, on 22nd June. Secondly, there will be lunchtime

and early evening performances in the Green Park or in St. James's Park instead of the afternoon and evening performances in Hyde Park. I hope this change of place will enable more people to listen to these performances. Details will be given to the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Road Accidents (Injuries)

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether the results of the sample inquiries undertaken by the Road Research Laboratory, in collaboration with the Medical Research Council, into the nature of injuries sustained in road accidents are now available; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The sample inquiries have been in operation only since October, 1958, and the number in the sample is not yet sufficient for analysis.

Mr. Moss: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before significant results become available?

Mr. Nicholls: It may be possible to make a preliminary report in about twelve months, but since the collaboration with the Road Research Laboratory and the Medical Research Council has been in operation about forty cases have been analysed. At that speed, about twelve months will produce a number of cases which will be worth reporting on.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Houses, Douglas and Douglas, West

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Special Housing Association houses are now standing empty at Douglas and Douglas, West, in the County of Lanark.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): On 29th April there were thirty-seven Scottish Special Housing Association houses vacant at Douglas. The Association does not own any houses at Douglas, West.

Mr. Maitland: is my right hon. Friend aware that those figures have been outdated by events and that there are now about 70 houses of various kinds empty in this village, of which about 50 are subsidized? Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that this village is losing half of its industry and one-third of its population within a matter of months? Will he take energetic steps to help to avert the consequential ruin which threatens a wide area of Lanarkshire?

Mr. Maclay: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very much aware of the problem in Douglas. I should inform him that I agreed that the Association should approach the Board of Trade in case any of the Scottish Special Housing Association houses can be used for key workers in industry, and that, if necessary, it should advertise the houses to let.

Schools, Glasgow (Part-time Education)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what immediate action he proposes taking to avoid the introduction of part-time education in Glasgow schools next session.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that, until it knows how many teachers will enter its service from the colleges of education and how many will retire or resign at the end of this session, the education authority will not be able to say whether, or to what extent, part-time education will be necessary next session.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that last Thursday the Education Committee of Glasgow Corporation homologated the view which I put to him on 26th March in a debate in the House on this matter? Can he tell me what attention he has paid to the valuable suggestions which I offered him then, in order to avoid part-time education in the City of Glasgow?

Mr. Maclay: I am well aware of the gravity of this problem and we have the help of the Advisory Council on the shortage of teachers as well as the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. We are in continued discussion on these matters and will do all we can to help in the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Gin Traps

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his consideration of the relevant factors concerning the prohibition of gin traps in Scotland; and what steps he now proposes to take to ban their use there.

Mr. Maclay: Gin traps are now illegal in Scotland except for catching foxes and otters. The three related Orders made last October came into operation on the first of this month.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he confers on the fox a privilege which he denies to every other wild creature in Scotland? Can he say why, since Friday last, 1st May, the fox is the only animal that has the legal right to enter a gin trap? In order to get rid of that anomaly, will he follow the good example of England and abolish the gin trap altogether?

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. The difficulty is that no humane alternative to the gin trap has been discovered as yet for dealing with foxes and otters. Until an alternative is discovered, the gin trap must continue.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why there should be this discrimination between English and Scottish foxes? What is the position if an English fox crosses the border into Scotland or if a Scottish fox crosses the border into England?

Mr. Maclay: That is a problem on which I must consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

Sir J. Duncan: If rabbits come back in a big way, these Orders may well make it extremely difficult to deal with them adequately. In that event, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Maclay: I would have to think very carefully before I went back on the Orders which have been made.

Aberdeen Development Plan

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet considered the proposals put to his Department last January by Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce in connection with the power of local authorities to


build factories, the Aberdeen Development Plan and the new building proposals for Scotland; and what steps he intends to take to implement those proposals.

Mr. Maclay: My noble Friend the Minister of State sent full information to the Chamber in February about the power of local authorities to build factories and about the Building (Scotland) Bill; and I have arranged with the Town Council to provide as quickly as possible the further information necessary to enable me to reach a decision on the Aberdeen Development plan.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there has been far too much delay in this matter and that all authoritative bodies in Aberdeen, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Trades Council, are united in favour of fostering the trade of Aberdeen? Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to this matter and take a leaf out of the book of the Government of Northern Ireland in their successful treatment of the problem?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well the various steps which have been taken to help in areas of heavy unemployment in Scotland, and he knows, too, that Aberdeen is eligible for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT

Mr. Moss: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on nuclear and allied radiations, incorporating the latest information.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the recent increase in radioactive fall-out over the United Kingdom; to what extent this is attributable to the Russian ground tests and the American test series, "Project Argus"; and to what extent this increased radioactivity may prove injurious to health.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Members to my statement of 28th April on radioactive fall-out.

Mr. Moss: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement of last week was confined to radioactive fall-out and

recent information which is available on fall-out in general? Has he considered the letter which I sent to him on Wednesday of last week in which I gave him exact references to the United Nations Report, to the Report of the Medical Research Council and to Command Paper 508? Is he aware that the Medical Research Council has accepted the view that the genetic effects of radiation are proportional, that there is no threshold dose below which there are no ill effects and that all addition to the radiation level is undesirable from the genetic point of view?
The Prime Minister: I circulated this long report at the request of hon. Members and I will try to answer detailed questions arising out of it. Paragraphs 2, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are particularly relevant to some of the points raised in these Questions. Meanwhile, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the detail comes in reply to a later Question which may not be reached today but which may be tabled again. The proportions between the different kinds of radiation to which mankind may be subjected are roughly these. One hundred from existing natural radiation in the world—the inevitable, ineluctable radiation to which ever since creation man has been subjected; about 22 in the United Kingdom from medical X-rays and things of that kind, and various industrial processes, like wrist watches; and between one and two as a result of nuclear fall-out.

Mr. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister inquire from the Medical Research Council to what extent its Report is based upon the threshold idea that above a certain limit radioactive substances are dangerous and below a certain limit they are innocuous? Many scientists say that this conception is entirely ill-founded, but that, as organisms are differently sensitive to radioactive situations, any increase in the radioactive background must increase the fatalities or injuries to living organisms.

The Prime Minister: There is a specific Question on this matter later to which I will reply if it is reached or if it is deferred. There is a question on this so-called threshold theory, but, broadly speaking, the fact remains that since man came into being he has bean subjected to something of the order of 100—in some


places it is more because of the special conditions—by natural radiation. It is something of the order of 22 from manmade radiation during the last 50 or 80 years in the United Kingdom and more in the United States where medical radiology is more advanced and more used. It is possibly between one and two as a result of nuclear radiation. Without minimising the importance of what we are trying to do at Geneva to get rid of the tests, I think that the House and the country should have those figures in mind and should keep them ha perspective.

Mr. Bevan: This is an extremely important aspect of the matter and I should like to follow it up by asking the right hon. Gentleman another supplementary question. It is unfortunate that we shall not reach the other Questions today. All the time we are having statements from the Government to say that at present, in the opinion of their advisers, the fallout is not dangerous or does not require immediate attention. At the same time, they say that there is a rise in the incidence of strontium 90 and in carbon and in caesium. If there is a rise, it would appear to the layman that as people are differently sensitive to this kind of radiation, there must be an increase in the incidence of sickness and of death arising from it and that, therefore, this completely invalidates what many of us on a priori grounds consider to be the threshold conception.

The Prime Minister: If we take the figures of 100, 22 and something between 1 and 2, we get the matter in perspective. It is difficult for science to make these experiments, but many are being made. If it is asked what is the threshold and whether it can be absolutely laid down, the answer at present is that it is not possible. When we consider, however, that by merely existing in the world, even if all forms of medical radiology and all the rest were abolished, man is subjected to a figure of about 100, how is it that the human race has survived?

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps we have not.

The Prime Minister: I have been carefully into this and I regret that we do not have time for the details. Perhaps the other Questions will be taken another day. The most likely suggestion to meet this fact is that the human race has,

in this case, as, indeed, with other pressures to which it is liable, been able by its recuperative powers to establish an equilibrium with the mutants.

Dr. Summerskill: While the Prime Minister has told the House what is the natural radiation, is he aware that what we are concerned with is the man-made radiation which is being added to the natural radiation? The Prime Minister has avoided the point that the threat is cumulative. He will recall that I have asked him the same question three times. He is avoiding the whole question of genetic change. Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week the most eminent scientists said that there was no threshold below which there cannot be a genetic change, and, indeed, the concentration of radiation in the air now is sufficient to cause those changes? Will the Prime Minister arrange to give us more records of this kind, which at present the country is lacking, concerning spontaneous abortions, the malformed foetus or the degree of sterility? Will he have a periodic survey of the situation?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that some of the Questions have not been reached. For example, there is Question No. 55, to which I would have given a reply. I said, however, that I did not propose to answer supplementary questions on these matters off the cuff if I could avoid it, because I have gone most carefully into the replies and spent several hours with my advisers going through them. The Questions can either be deferred and asked again or they can be answered in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The general and broad answer, however, is that if, as I hope, we are able at Geneva to reach an agreement abolishing tests, the human race will still be subjected always to 100. What is perhaps the most important question—the Report is only out today and I have not had time to study it—is that there remains the very big question of man-made radiation for medical and industrial reasons.

Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman now reply to the last pant of Question No. 47 and say to what extent this increased radioactivity may prove injurious to health, particularly having in mind that paragraph 12 of the Report states there was a noticeable increase of strontium 90 in children's bones—that


is to say, in the bones of children examined last year and taking no account of the increase which has occurred this year—and that that is the real increase from the doubling of strontium 90? Does not the Prime Minister feel concerned that this may prove injurious, particularly to the health of young children?

The Prime Minister: We are very concerned. Strontium 90 produces radiation. Some people seem to think that it is quite different from radiation, but it simply produces it. If the hon. Member studies paragraphs 2, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of my statement of last week he will find the answer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister clear up at least one point? He said that the strontium 90 produced radiation. Are we, therefore, to take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Answer to the Question concerning radiation—that the proportions between natural radiation, man-made radiation and nuclear tests were 100, 22 and 1—also applies to strontium 90? What difference is made to these figures by the fact that, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, the amount of strontium 90 deposited in the United Kingdom in one year has doubled?

The Prime Minister: Strontium 90 was released by the nuclear tests. It produces radiation and it also is of a rather lasting character and, therefore, differs from some other forms of radiation. The answer, I think, is broadly that, so far as the health viewpoint is concerned, there is nothing which has yet happened which causes anxiety to my advisers. There is a much greater degree of danger in certain parts of the world, arising partly from other causes. That is not to say that I am not very anxious to reach agreement by which this addition, small as it is, could be discontinued.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath.

Mr. Beswick: On a point of order. The Prime Minister has stated that he is unable to answer certain supplementary questions "off the cuff", as he calls it—I quite understand his difficulty—and he has invited further Questions to be put down. The point I wish to put, Mr. Speaker, is that we are in some difficulty when we come to phrase Questions for the Order Paper. If it is attempted to

phrase a Question posing precisely what we have in mind, endeavouring to get a very narrow point put over, we are up against the rule of order that we are continuing a debate. I have had several Questions turned down when endeavouring to get a particular point cleared up because they have been held to contravene that rule.
As the Prime Minister, quite understandably—I appreciate what he said—has referred to the difficulty of replying to some of these Questions off the cuff, I wonder whether the rule concerning Questions might be interpreted a little broadly on this subject, as it is a difficult one to overcome.

The Prime Minister: Before you answer that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there are on the Order Paper today a number of Questions of a quite detailed nature to which I have, with my advisers, prepared replies with great care. The difficulty is not so much the phrasing of the Questions as the fact that they have not been reached.

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. In view of the Prime Minister's statement, would it not be for the convenience of the House if, on Thursday, the Prime Minister would make a full statement covering all these other points so that they may be dealt with together?

The Prime Minister: I made a long statement which was published in HANSARD last week. Then, I suggested that detailed Questions arising from it might be put upon the Order Paper. The only trouble today is that the Questions have not been reached. If, however, we had had 15 or 20 minutes on them I do not think there would have been any difficulty.

Mr. Gaitskell: To avoid the situation which arose today and might easily arise again on Thursday because of the position of the Prime Minister's Questions, may I suggest that these difficulties could be overcome if the Prime Minister will kindly agree to make a statement after Questions on Thursday covering these other points?

The Prime Minister: That is quite impossible. I could lump all these statements and put them together, but they are on all kinds of different aspects of this question and it would be far better


to deal with them in a number of Questions. It was just by chance that these Questions were not reached today.

Mr. Speaker: They are usually reached but they have not been reached today, although I did my best and perhaps disappointed many hon. Members by not calling on them for supplementary questions. As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), it is an essential rule of Questions that they should seek information and be definite so that they can be answered. Debate is quite another sphere of our activities. I do not know whether it would suit the desire of the Leader of the Opposition if there were some Motion or something which we could discuss in the proper way. My trouble about a statement after Questions is that it would lead to an irregular debate, with no Question before the House, and that might lead to many inconveniences and go on for a time which the House perhaps might not have desired. If all these things can be thought about we may obtain an answer to the difficulties which arise.

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)

Committee to consider of increasing the rate of the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1957.— [Queen's Recommendation signified], Tomorrow.—[Mr. Heath.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class V, Vote 9, Department of Health for Scotland;

Class V, Vote 10, National Health Service, Scotland;

Class IX, Vote 9, Roads &, Scotland;

Class I, Vote 23, Scottish Home Department.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HEALTH BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 55, page 38, line 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Derek Walker-Smith.— [Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 55.—(REGULATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART IV.)

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, in page 38, line 3, to leave out "and" and to insert:
to furnish or make available to those patients, and their relatives, such written statements of their rights and powers under this Act as may be so prescribed
We had an interesting discussion in Standing Committee on the important matter of communicating in simple language relevant information about rights, procedures, and so on, to patients and their nearest relatives. I said in the Committee that this was right in principle and that the appropriate method would be to include such information in the sort of pamphlets which hospitals send out for the guidance of patients and their relatives on various matters of procedure and other interests. The Amendment gives effect to the undertaking which I gave on that point. I said then that it was my intention to ensure by administrative means that the hospital authorities and the local health authorities should supply this information, but that, if necessary, a statutory requirement could be imposed in the regulations under Clause 55.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I said that if the Clause as drafted was not wide enough to enable those regulations to be made, we could widen the scope. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the Minister will have the power to make such regulations if it proves


necessary to impose a statutory requirement, but I would still think it probably right to proceed in the first instance by administrative means.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I merely want to thank the Minister for introducing the proposal which was originally raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). We should like to have the opportunity of considering the form of the explanatory notes. We realise that these proposals will come under the negative Resolution procedure applying to an Order in the House but, as they will come in the form of such an Order which can only be prayed against, I should like to know whether the Minister would take some steps to ensure that there is consideration of the form of the notes before that Order is placed before the House.
That might enable some slight changes to be made if they were thought to be desirable. Otherwise, we shall not he able to amend the form of the notes. We would all be anxious that they should be in the simplest language possible for people to follow.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: If the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) were followed up it would be extremely helpful. We were concerned about it in Committee. If there is one thing that Members of Parliament should be authorities upon it is making people understand what they mean. I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for being so helpful on this matter today, as, indeed, he was when I moved an Amendment in Committee. This proposal will be of enormous benefit to the general public and to those concerned with administering the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I should like to thank the Minister for responding to the debate in Committee. I hope that when these notes are issued to patients there will be nothing in them to differentiate them from those received by ordinary patients in hospital. It would be very difficult if specific and separate documents were

issued to patients suffering from mental illness, who were detained for treatment and to their relatives. I hope that these documents will be prepared in such a form that they can be issued to any patient in hospital.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) for what they have said about my action in this matter. We have very much in mind the point made by the hon. Lady, which we also discussed in Committee. It is, of course, of the first importance that what we do should be done in such a way as not to seem to emphasise a distinction which we are all anxious not to make.
We are concerned with two things. First, there are the regulations which are the subject matter of the Amendment; and, secondly, there is the form of words which will go into the pamphlets issued by the hospital authorities. I am quite ready to co-operate on both, but I think that it is really the latter, which is the extra-Parliamentary thing, in which the right hon. Gentleman is most interested, that is, to see that the information and guidance gets over to the patients and relatives in the most simple language that will be most easily understood. On that, I should be very glad of any help that he or any other hon. Member can give me when the time comes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that, to some extent, the one affects the other. Clearly, if the regulations are very complicated or long, it will almost inevitably make the notes themselves rather more difficult to follow.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand that, but I believe that the regulations will be neither complicated nor long, because they will be permissive regulations merely to make it clear that the Minister has the power to require this to be done. This is to be done if, contrary to my present expectation, there is any necessity so to require it, but I think that we shall deal with this quite happily and conveniently by the ordinary administrative means.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move in page 38, line 3, at the end to insert:
(d) for the constitution of committees to advise local health authorities as to the approval of medical practitioners for the purposes of section twenty-eight of this Act and for prohibiting the grant of such approval except on the advice of such committees.
The origin of this Amendment was a discussion held in Committee and reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, in cols. 329 to 333, dealing with provisions under Clause 28 (2). This is the Clause which prescribes the medical recommendations required in respect of compulsory admission. Subsection (2) provides that one such recommendation must be given by a practitioner who is approved by the local health authority as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.
I resisted in Committee the suggestion made, at one time, that approval should be taken out of the hands of the local health authorities, but, in so doing, I said that I was attracted by the suggestion of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association that, in approving medical practitioners, local health authorities should act on the advice of joint committees composed of medical representatives of local health authorities, on the one hand, and hospital staffs, on the other.
The constitution of these committees will, of course, have to vary. To take an obvious example, teaching hospital representatives would be on the committees in some areas but not in other areas where there are no teaching hospitals. I therefore proposed that the constitution of the committees should be prescribed by regulation, and I undertook to introduce the power to make such regulations either in Clause 55, which we are dealing with now, or in Clause 28. This Amendment is designed to implement that undertaking.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in Committee I dissented from the original suggestion that it should be left to the local health authorities to put the seal of their approval on psychiatrists for the purpose of this Clause of the Bill. I am glad that the Minister felt it possible to go so far as the setting up of these joint committees as recommended by the Royal

Medico-Psychological Association, and I think that we shall find this to be a satisfactory solution of the problem.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say a little more about the form that the committees will take? I quite understand that they will have to vary from area to area. First, will they be based on local health authority areas or on hospital regional areas; and, secondly, is it intended that all the members of these committees should be medical members and that approximately the local health authority members should balance the regional hospital board members on the committees?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My present thinking is that the committees would probably be based on local health authority areas, but if it should prove more convenient to deal with it the other way I would not see any insuperable bar thereto.
It is designed that these should be medical committees. As I have said, the intention is that there should be medical guidance for what is, in effect, a professional matter. As to whether there should be an exact balance, I think that we should leave that flexible because, as I explained in a rather different context, there are so many varying considerations. In some cases, although not in others, we shall have the three elements—the local health authority representatives, the regional hospital board representatives and the teaching hospital board representatives. Therefore, I do not think we can say in any one formula just what will happen. We shall have to leave it a little flexible. If the purpose of the hon. Gentleman is that we should try to get a balance and fair representation between the local side and the hospital side, I very much sympathise with that point of view.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I should like to say a word of appreciation to my right hon. and learned Friend for putting down this Amendment. Although there are changes in the Bill and in the general arrangements, the quality and prestige of the service depend very much on the recommending—I hope that he will not call them certifying—doctors, whose form can really be judged only by those in the hospitals who are at the receiving end of the business. I am sure that it will be of immense help that they are able to express their opinion on this


matter, which they have had difficulty in doing hitherto.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(DUTY OF MENTAL WELFARE OFFICER TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OR GUARDIANSHIP.)

(1) It shall be the duty of a mental welfare officer to make an application for admission to hospital or a guardianship application in respect of a patient within the area of the local authority by whom that officer is appointed in any case where he is satisfied that such an application ought to be made and is of opinion, having regard to the wishes of any relatives of the patient or any other relevant circumstances, that it is necessary or proper for the application to be made by him.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring an application to be made by a mental welfare officer in contravention of the provisions of subsection (2) of section twenty-seven of this Act, or of that subsection as applied by section thirty-three of this Act.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause, which I am commending to the House, would make it the duty of mental welfare officers to make applications for the admission of patients to hospital or guardianship under Part IV of the Bill. For this duty to arise under this Clause, they must, first, be satisfied that an application ought to be made, and, secondly, have regard to the wishes of the patient's relatives and other relevant circumstances before coming to the conclusion that it is necessary or proper for them to make the application.
The position under the Bill is this. Clauses 25, 26, 29 and 33 as drafted empower mental welfare officers and the patient's nearest relatives—or under Clause 29, which is the emergency procedure provision, any relative—to make an application, but impose no obligation to do so even when the circumstances in which compulsory admission is permitted are fulfilled.
4.0 p.m.
Under the existing legislation which is repealed by the Bill there is an obligation under the mental deficiency side of the

present code; for example, the Mental Deficiency Acts lay on the local health authorities a duty to ascertain the defectives in their area and, if necessary, to take steps for their admission to hospital or guardianship. That obtains under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 30 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. Turning to the other code under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, Sections 14 and 15 of the Lunacy Act of 1890 require the duly authorised officer of the local health authority to apply for an order for the admission to hospital of persons of unsound mind whenever the officer is satisfied that the conditions described in these Sections are fulfilled. So we have a duty to that extent obtaining under the present law.
There has been some criticism of the Bill from the Society of Mental Welfare Officers among others that in the absence of any similar duty on anybody to take action under Part IV of the Bill there is a danger that same patients who need treatment or care might conceivably be overlooked. The effect of this proposed Clause is to repair that omission, while leaving it, as at present under the Lunacy Acts, within the discretion of the individual officer to form his own judgment that the application ought to be made.
In effect, this puts the mental welfare officer in the position of having an obligation to attend to these matters. It is stronger than a simple permissive power would be, but it leaves the decision in each individual case to his own judgment, which must be right. I therefore hope that the proposed Clause, repairing this omission and conferring this degree of duty, will commend itself to the House.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I agree with the Minister. It is rather curious that in a Bill so carefully drafted as this one there should be this omission. It would mean that if, under Clause 29, a mental welfare officer was reluctant or hesitant to do his duty, or the relatives of the patient did not face their obligations, no action would be taken. I endorse the Minister's compliment to the Society of Mental Welfare Officers on their approach to this Bill. The little memorandum they produced was most constructive, very responsible, and showed that this point had been overlooked by us. I am sure that the whole House will welcome this Clause.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: May I ask a question on the penultimate line of subsection (1), which reads
…having regard to the wishes of any relatives …"?
Has that to be taken as an insistence that relatives must be consulted in this matter? In the course of his remarks the Minister referred to this obliquely, but may I have an assurance that those words can be construed as imposing upon the officer the necessity always to consult the relatives, and that he could not act otherwise?

Mr. K. Robinson: Would he Minister also say a word about an undertaking he gave in this connection in Committee, in response to an Amendment I moved intending to place a duty on the mental welfare officer to take action in such cases where the two medical recommendations required by Part IV were forthcoming? In response, the right hon and learned Gentleman quoted at column 324 a paragraph in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency and then commented that the Amendment was rather wide, but that the recommendations of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association were confined to suicidal and homicidal cases. He then said that he would think about the matter in the light of these considerations. I wonder what conclusion the right hon. and learned Gentleman reached on this point, which would be perhaps an extension of the duty he is now placing for the first time on the mental welfare officer.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If I have the leave of the House to reply to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), it is a fact that I put before the Standing Committee the two opposed considerations which I thought would work in the context of his suggestion. I said then:
On the one hand, we have the view that the mental welfare officer is or may be unqualified and that therefore his view should not prevail against the united view of the two medical practitioners. On the other hand, we have the fact that he is a responsible officer dealing with these matters and it would obviously he wrong to put him in the position of being a mere rubber stamp."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 3rd March, 1959; c. 323 and 324.]
I have thought more about this point, as l said I would. I have come to the conclusion, from which I think the House would not dissent—especially bearing in

mind the tribute quite properly paid by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) to these gentlemen—that it would be wrong to adopt a course which would have inevitably the appearance of making them, in certain circumstances at any rate, a mere rubber stamp. So, for that reason, the Clause takes the form it does, and does not go the length which the hon. Gentleman had in mind at that time.
On the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), the degree of consultation required, and the statutory provision in respect thereof, is set out in Clause 27 of the Bill. This proposed procedure does not change nor abrogate from those provisions. It is in this Clause to draw attention to the statutory position under Clause 27.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Apparently, this also applies to admissions under Clause 25, although it provides certain limitations under Clause 27, for obvious reasons. Does the mental welfare officer have to say for what purpose he is recommending the admission, and whether it should be under Clause 25 or Clause 26, or is it left at large?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The position is precisely the same as spelled out in Part IV. This proposed Clause merely puts an added obligation on the mental welfare officer. It does not change the procedural steps which must precede an application, whether it be for observation under Clause 25 or whether it be for treatment. Those procedural steps, and all the carefully balanced safeguards with which the hon. Gentleman is so familiar, stand in respect of an application by the mental welfare officer, whether it be under this Clause or any other.

Mr. Hale: That I appreciate and accept and agree. What I am wondering is whether, as the Government are providing what the mental welfare officer must say on the form on which he recommends admission, he ought not also have to say, "For the moment I am only recommending, under Clause 25, that there shall be two medical practitioners to follow who need not be fully qualified under Clause 26."

Mr. Walker-Smith: It will be clear as to which procedure he is proceeding


under, whether it is an application for admission for observation or for treatment. It is important that this distinction is always kept in view.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 2.—(DISSOLUTION OF BOARD OF CONTROL.)

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end insert:
and shall continue to carry out such duties, in respect of the regular visiting of hospitals and the issuing of reports of such visits, as the Minister may direct ".
Under no circumstances do I wish to repeat what has already been said in Committee, as I do not wish to waste the time of the House. We feel very strongly about the matter mentioned in the Amendment; indeed, the Minister will recall that we had a long debate on a similar Amendment in Committee.
Why do we feel strongly? The House will agree with us that we must ensure that these patients are safeguarded. If we feel that an opportunity has been missed whereby a safeguard might have been injected into the Bill, we must reconsider the position. In Committee, we all paid tribute to the Board of Control. I have had some knowledge of the Board of Control over many years and I have never met anyone connected with it who has not fulfilled his obligations, who has not been dedicated to his work, and who has not been of the highest integrity.
Under the Bill, the Board of Control is to disappear, but the Minister will employ the officers. What we are asking is that those officers
shall continue to carry out such duties, in respect of the regular visiting of hospitals and the issuing of reports of such visits, as the Minister may direct.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments which we had in Committee, but I think that I am fair in asking the Minister to recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who, everybody will agree, is a rather astute lawyer, had to admit that the Minister's answer was so involved that he had no idea what the right hon, and learned Gentleman was talking about. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) came to his aid and said that he knew what the Minister was talk-

ing about, but we were left with a rather blurred idea of what was in the Minister's mind.
I looked up the Minister's reply. He agreed with me in principle, but he said that he did not wish to make the duty statutory and he said that he would regard the visiting of these hospitals by officers who were originally in the Board of Control as part of Ministerial responsibility. He also said:
…they are all patients, whatever their origin [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 10th February, 1959; c. 11]
I want to address my remarks to that. I cannot agree that these patients can be put in the same category as patients suffering from some physical disorder. These patients are often friendless and it is commonplace for relatives not to visit them. If they manage to write lucid letters, people wonder whether the letter is the result of a disturbed mind, or whether the complaint which a patient may be making has any foundation.
I suggest that patients with mental disorder should have greater care, that we should exercise greater vigilance to ensure that they are properly protected, and that the conditions surrounding them are adequate, than would be the case with patients suffering from physical disorder.
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of when visiting mental hospitals officers of the Board of Control were concerned not only with the condition of patients, but with the standard of cleanliness in the hospital. They chatted with medical officers and they examined all the domestic arrangements, and so on. I am asking that as a result of the disappearance of the Board of Control we should not lose the special care which those officers exercised. I ask the Minister not to think of these patients as he might of patients suffering from some medical or surgical disorder, but as patients demanding special care, special vigilance and special sympathy.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I respect the motive which underlies the Amendment and I do not dissent from its general intention, although, as I shall explain in a moment, I cannot advise the House to add it to the Bill, for reasons which I shall give.
In Committee, I gave a necessarily somewhat technical disquisition on the present law. The right hon. Lady has


recalled that and I wish only to disclaim any intention of seeking to arbitrate between the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I am sure that the House will be at one in welcoming my statement that I see no necessity to repeat that disquisition and again inflict it on the House.
What I was concerned to do was to show the limitation of the present statutory position in this regard. I then went on to define my general objective. I said that what was wanted was
a system of visiting by experts from the centre to see that all is well in these hospitals, to convey new ideas as they go round and to act themselves as a clearing house and channel for the dissemination of the ideas which they themselves are picking up and are able to transmit throughout the Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 10th February, 1959; c. 10.]
I think that that is the common desire of hon. Members opposite, as it is of hon. Members on this side of the House.
The House has to decide whether this Amendment is necessary or appropriate as an instrument to that end. I regret that I have to give my view that it is not, for three main reasons. First, it is technically defective; secondly, and perhaps more important, it is constitutionally inappropriate; thirdly, it is unnecessary for the objective which we have in mind.
It is technically defective because as drafted it would apply only to the individual members who are transferred; in other words, it would not extend beyond their term of service; nor would it extend to other officers within the Department to whom such duties might be assigned.
On the second ground, the House must remember that with the dissolution of the Board of Control these gentlemen will become officers of the Ministry of Health. The right hon. Lady, who has much experience of these matters, knows that it is impossible in an Act of Parliament to spell out specific duties for members of the staff of a Minister when he has an overall responsibility. The Minister can give directions to his staff within the ambit of his broad Ministerial responsibility without the intervention of any words in a Statute such as this.
The third reason, as I said in Committee, is that sufficient powers already exist.

The Minister of Health already has a power and responsibility in respect of visits, inspections, and so on, by virtue of the combined operation of Section 1 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and Section 2 of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919. All the powers are there, and no further powers are required. They would, in fact, be otiose.
So far as the exercise of those powers is concerned, which is what we are really concerned with in the long run, it is my intention that there should be visits by experts from the Department to hospitals and that the visits should continue and that we should have an appropriate system of visiting to ensure both the cross-fertilisation of ideas to which I referred in Committee, and the raising of standards in the hospital service, with special regard to the psychiatric cases that we are concerned with here.
As I envisage it, the Ministry itself will act as a clearing-house for ideas and we shall use the annual report of the Ministry to make a proper contribution both to the collation of ideas and the sorting of them and to their dissemination in a proper form to all interested persons.
I think that the visits should be neither routine nor inquisitorial, and should neither be superficial nor yet suspicious. The sort of visits we want should be purposeful, thorough, constructive, and designed to help those responsible for the hospitals to raise their standards. The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) referred to the range and scope of these visits. With respect, I entirely agree with that, and that will be reflected in the categories of people who will carry out the visits.
There will be visits by varied categories of experts, by medical and nursing staffs, and by various specialised experts like dieticians. In addition, and by no means least important, there will be visits by the general administrators who will be concerned with the general administrative complexion of the whole thing.
I now come to the question of reports. Reports made by the Ministry staff following their visits and inspections are corn-piled in the first place for the Minister so that he can discharge his duty of raising the standards of administration in the hospitals and acting as a clearing-house for all constructive ideas and improvements so that they can be disseminated


as widely as possible. The further use and distribution of reports necessarily depends on the individual case. In many cases, and, I should think, in most, the reports will be circulated to the hospital management committee and/or the hospital board specifically concerned with the visit in question.
Sometimes, however, it may be more appropriate for the points raised to be pursued either by correspondence or further oral personal exchanges with the authorities in question. Whatever methods are used, the object will be the same, and the object will dictate the method, the object being to help the committees or boards to the full with the aim of improving the particular hospital, and the hospital service in general.
I do not think that a general commitment or obligation to publish reports in the wide sense would be either appropriate or helpful, because experience shows that one gets a greater degree of frankness and freedom of criticism if the reports are communicated privately to the authorities concerned without being disseminated to the world. I think that that is implicit in the right hon. Lady's Amendment, which contains the words:
…as the Minister may direct.
Before parting with the matter, perhaps I might say to the right hon. Lady that I think that there is some little misunderstanding between us about my meaning in the passage of my speech in Committee to which I was referred. I said:
…they all become, from my point of view, and that of the National Health Service, patients; and wherever they may have come from…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Cornmittee E, 10th February, 1959; c. 11.]
I was speaking in the context of mental or psychiatric patients and, as my preceding words make clear, what I was then addressing myself to was whether they came in under Part IV or whether they came in under Part V, by transfer directions, or by hospital orders from the courts. From that point of view, whatever the origin, they are all patients so far as the National Health Service is concerned.
I was speaking in the context of mental and psychiatric cases. I was not then dealing generally with what one might call physical or surgical cases. I was stressing that point, and I think that it is

one with which the House will agree. I realise that there must be certain differences of approach between physical and mental cases.
I conclude by saying that I must reluctantly advise the House against accepting the Amendment. In doing so, it is not because I quarrel with its underlying purpose, but because in my view, for the reasons I have given, it is neither necessary nor effective for translating that purpose into action.

Dr. Johnson: Those of us who are sympathetic with the Amendment, as I am sure we are, appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's argument, but I am wondering whether he can give us a little more comfort on one particular point than he has done. When we discussed this matter in Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend—and he will correct me if I am wrong—tended to equate the inspection of mental hospitals and mental patients with general hospitals and patients suffering from physical illness.
There is one distinct difference between these two categories from a practical point of view. We repeatedly get complaints of ill-treatment from patients who are being detained as mental patients, but during my experience over four years in the House I have not had a single complaint of ill-treatment from anybody suffering from physical illness in a hospital. The worrying part of these complaints is that we do not believe they are true, but we do not know whether they are or not. The satisfaction we obtain depends on our confidence in the particular inspecting body that we approach.
We have to remember one important change. Hitherto, not only we, but members of the public, had direct access to the Board of Control, the legal advisers to the Board of Control, or other members of it. Apparently we shall be denied access to the proposed inspecting body. It has been a considerable measure of comfort on occasions to feel that one could go direct to the Board of Control. They were the people responsible and we knew them, and I am wondering whether the Minister would consider an arrangement of that nature. I do not want to press him at all, but perhaps he would give consideration to these complaints of ill-treatment should they keep on occurring.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, during the Committee stage, was always courteous, always helpful, and often very clear. I expressed the view then that what was perhaps his first explanation in the course of a long Committee was not particularly clear to me. The arguments he has put forward today are somewhat different and, frankly, were a little more impressive to me, and a little more clear. Perhaps his explanations may be regarded as conveying sufficient promise to me. At any rate, it was worth while putting down the Amendment in a slightly different form.
4.30 p.m.
The difficulty is that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman displays the hat to his audience he is apt to forget on which occasion it is supposed to contain the rabbit and on which occasion it is not. We always get a reference to the power to make regulations. We are told that any defects or lacunae in the Bill will be put right or filled by the making of an elaborate statutory regulation to cover the point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to forget that here we are discussing—and my right hon. Friend put down her Amendment to deal with—a temporary arid immediate situation relating to the function of the Board of Control whose major powers and officers are b being transferred direct to the Ministry of Health. Therefore, the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not a temporary effect is not very strong. The Amendment would have the effect of dealing with an immediate situation until regulations have been approved by Parliament, and it will mean that the duties are carried on.
On the main question of what are these duties, in a later stage of the Standing Committee debate I expressed the view that reports from the Board of Control to the House had never been very full or adequate. The reports which many of us read with pleasure from the Prison Commissioners are, in many ways, models of their kind. They are one of the few documents in which the appendices are often more interesting than the report, because they give individual and humane examples of cases. The reports from the Board of Control are examples of what is usually said to be the supreme quality of wit—they concentrate on brevity.
The explanation of the Minister, I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, was:
When we come to the question of what these duties and rights are, we find that they are not a particularly clear or comprehensive pattern. Under the present naw, the statutory duty of inspection, which would be transferred to the Minister if we made this Amendment to the Clause, relates in the first place to mental deficiency institutions, whether inside or outside the National Health Service, and, secondly, to registered hospitals and licensed houses, but only where they are outside the National Health Service. This is, in fact, provided for in Section 194 of the Lunacy Act. 1890, which refers to visits to hospitals, but hospitals in that context are defined in Section 341 of the Act, in effect, as being hospitals outside the National Health Service.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to qualify that by saying that the statutory duty of reporting does not, in fact, exist, but that
…the Commissioners do have a duty to report to the Board on visits to hospitals which are hospitals designated under Section 20 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. That again is a comparatively narrow range, confined, broadly speaking "—
how we can have a narrow range broadly speaking I do not know—
to the observation wards. Their other statutory duty of reporting is in Section 162 of the Act of 1890 …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 10th February, 1959; c. 8–9.]
It was this classical statement of the position which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) found crystal clear. I was reminded of the lad who was asked to explain an abstruse point arising from ecclesiastical history in Chapter 1 of Genesis. He said that he did know, but had forgotten. His teacher said, "Here is someone who has understood the subject, and the eternal pity is that the world has lost that understanding which might have been so much valued in our discussions today." That was my unhappy situation.
We never did find out what are the full duties. But we all know what is the real importance of this matter. There must be public responsibility for these institutions; there must be accountability by these institutions. It is vital to us to know, in the answers that are given, that the Minister is at least to reserve, in accordance with the terms of this Clause, the present system of inspecting, the present system of reporting.
Whether it is carried on by the same individuals or by other officers is a less important matter, so long as they are


qualified officers responsible to the Minister, and so long as the Minister is responsible to this House, and so long as this House can obtain, by means of these reports and inspections and by means of Questions, full information about the management of these institutions and the fullest inquiry into alleged complaints about management, and ascertain how they are being conducted in detail.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I gather from what has been said that there has been some discussion about this matter previously. I have, I think, more mental hospitals in my constituency than there are in any other constituency. I receive a great many letters from patients, and I have some knowledge of the staff of mental hospitals. I have the greatest respect for the staff of these hospitals, who discharge their great task, with dedication, to use the phrase of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). They carry out their duties to the great admiration of practically everyone.
While I cannot support the Amendment in its present form, I feel that there is great force behind what the hon. Lady has suggested to my right hon. and learned Friend. Though there are many matters in which the absence of the Board of Control is not something about which there will be great grieving, I feel uneasy that this power should be taken away from the members, commissioners or inspectors of the Board. It seems a very different thing when they become officers of the Ministry and these visits become visits of inspection. They may not be routine visits, but they are mere visits or inspections by officers of the Ministry. Therefore, they assume a different proportion and have a different importance.
Psychologically, it is very important that visits of inspection be made by some outside body. I appreciate the force of the arguments advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend and I was interested to hear them, but I am concerned about this and I should be obliged if a way could be found of returning to a system of inspection by an outside body. I feel that that is a most important safeguard.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Minister has come a long way to meet the point which we have raised. He said that the reports would frequently be made available to the hospitals. I hope he meant that in the normal course of events the reports would be available to the hospitals, because that is perhaps the most important matter of all.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If I may, by leave of the House, reply to that point—

Mr. Ede: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in charge of the Bill, he has no need to ask the leave of the House if he wishes to speak more than once.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for his expert guidance. I shall certainly seek not to abuse the privilege to which he has so kindly drawn attention.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), I think that in the ordinary course the reports would be available. But there may be cases where the individual points in a report can be taken up in a more informal manner either by correspondence or by visiting. Hon. Members may be reassured, if they require reassurance, that the form of visit which I have in mind will be an effective one.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) said that he did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. I ask him to be good enough to read the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who was a member of the Royal Commission, and the paragraphs in the Report of the Royal Commission which deal with the point. He will see that the disadvantage of having an outside body in this new concept of things to make these visits is that it would suggest a distinction when we are anxious to emphasise the uniformity between these types of hospital.
I was not anxious to come back to the technical disquisitions on the present law which I had to give in Standing Committee, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has done it. I do not know whether there is a word to cover the vicarious infliction of pain upon another,


which he has done by recalling my rather complicated observations. He says they Were not altogether clear to him. I reply, as Dr. Johnson did on a celebrated occasion, "I can give you the argument, but not the understanding". I console myself with the knowledge that I was understood by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu).
I gave that description to show—and this is the point—the relative narrowness of the present statutory position, and thereon to found an argument that it was not necessarily a particularly good thing to project the present law into our future relations. What we are doing now will set up an efficient system of visiting and reporting. having regard to the dual considerations, first, that we want a thorough system of visiting and reporting in a constructive and helpful way, and, secondly, that we want a system which will not emphasise the distinction between the hospital which takes psychiatric cases and the hospital which does not. I think that we have the highest common denominator in the methods which I propose, so I very much hope that the Amendment need not be pressed.

Dr. Summerskill: I must say that we have all understood the Minister this time. One point is always in my mind. I always like 10 reject any discrimination in visiting and reporting hospitals. We shall ail watch closely what is done in these establishments. In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICA- TION OF MENTAL DISORDER.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 46, at the end to insert:
or will be so incapable when of an age to do so".
I can best explain the Amendment by calling attention to two of the definitions in Clause 4. The first is the definition of "severe subnormality" contained in subsection (2), which says;
In this Act 'severe subnormality' means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of such a nature or degree that the patient is incapable of living an independent life.
Then follows, in subsection (3), the definition of "subnormality" which, the subsection says,

means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind (not amounting to severe subnormality) which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of a nature or degree which requires or is susceptible to medical treatment or other special care or training of the patient.
It emerges from that, that the main differentiation is in the capacity for living an independent life in the case of the severely subnormal patient.
At present, the criterion of difference is the present capacity of the child. This definition was criticised in the Committee, more particularly by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in columns 71–74, on the ground that it led to confusion in the case of children. He said that the young subnormal child was incapable, in the fullest sense, of living an independent life, and, therefore, any subnormal child could, on a strict interpretation of the Clause, be brought into the severely subnormal category. I undertook to see whether words could be found to safeguard the position and put it beyond doubt. The Amendment gives effect to my undertaking, and achieves what the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do by the Amendment which he tabled in Committee.
4.45 p.m.
The effect of my Amendment is that the criterion for severe subnormality in the case of a child or young person will be
arrested or incomplete development of mind … of such a nature or degree that the patient is incapable of living an independent life or will be so incapable when of an age to do so.
This definition involves an element of prognosis, which I think is inevitable. The prognosis of the child's future development will obviously take into account the likely effect of the training and treatment of the child. Obviously, that is a matter of medical practice, as it were, and need not be spelt out in the Bill.
I think that we have met the hon. Gentleman's point as well as could be by puttting it into a statutory form. I would remind him and the House that there is a procedure in Clause 38 for reclassification if in any case it should appear that, in spite of this safeguard, somebody who should properly be classified as subnormal has got into the severely subnormal category.

Mr, K. Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the point I raised in Committee. The matter is small, but by no means unimportant. The words that he has moved achieve the result which I sought to achieve in the Committee. I am happy to accept this assurance that they do so in terms which are rather more appropriate for a Statute than my effort in the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "be" to "from" in line 13 and to insert:
dealt with under this Act as suffering from mental disorder or".
This is a drafting Amendment, to meet a point made in Committee by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). He suggested that there might be confusion between the word "treated", in the sense in which it is here used, and the word "treatment" used in the technical sense in other parts of the Bill, meaning the treatment given in hospital. The Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt, and the hon. Gentleman may think it uses a better phrase than the word "regarded" which he originally proposed.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I may be a little stupid here, but does not this wording seem to be a little tautologous? As I read the Amendment it will make the subsection read:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as implying that a person may be dealt with under this Act as suffering from mental disorder or from any form of mental disorder described in this section, by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct.
Does not that repeat itself?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. There is "mental disorder" as a comprehensive term, and then there are various forms of mental disorder which are set out in Clause 4 covering the various grades of mental illness, such as severe subnormality. These words are necessary to ensure that they will apply right across the board to all the forms of disorder there set out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES.)

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, after "of", to insert "duly qualified".
This is a simple Amendment, but I think that it is a rather important one. We are anxious to think that in future the mental welfare officers, at least those who are newly recruited, should be qualified. We all know today of the duly authorised officer who will be the mental health officer, and we all recall his predecessor, the relieving officer. The relieving officer was a great friend to every general practitioner in the country and solved all kinds of difficult domestic problems as well as health problems.
The duly authorised officers derive from the relieving officers, and we shall now have the mental welfare officers. It is a very curious thing that most of them—I think that I am right in saying this—have no qualification whatsoever. They are honest, decent, hard working men who have to exercise judgment at the most difficult times, who are trusted by the public and by the doctors and who have, as I have already said, examined carefully this highly technical Bill and have made certain recommendations, one of which has been accepted this afternoon.
In the future, they want their ranks widened by people who have a qualification. I cannot quite understand why this should not be put into the Bill and why this Amendment should not be accepted. If the Amendment were accepted, paragraph (c) would read:
the appointment of duly qualified officers to act as mental welfare officers.
The mental welfare officers who are unqualified would not, of course, object to this. They are only too anxious to increase the prestige of their calling. Therefore, I ask the Minister to remember when he is reconsidering the matter that this is the kind of thing that these excellent men and women would like to see embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Sorensen: I wish very briefly to endorse the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). We are all aware of how quite a number of social workers, and, indeed, professional workers, in the past at first had no qualifications. They did good work in many ways and gradually reached the stage when they realised that some recognised qualification should be attained by all those who wished in the future to pursue their calling. This surely applies to this office of mental welfare officer. I wish to bear testimony, as did


every hon. Member on the Committee, to the splendid work done by these officers heretofore and, indeed, today.
I would add to what my right hon. Friend said in her eulogy of these officers by saying that many of them have acquired by experience considerable qualifications, and they, I am sure, will be able to continue in this work. But it is true that these worthy officers themselves desire that there should be a standard of qualification for future entrants. Even if they themselves did not aspire in their later years to acquiring these qualifications, they are very appreciative of the very onerous and responsible functions which they have to fulfil and they desire that those who take their place shall be so qualified.
I cannot understand why the Minister does not think it necessary to indicate that in the future the officers appointed to this task shall be duly qualified. I know, of course, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires that they shall be so qualified and that it is his intention ultimately that they should be so qualified. Why, then, should there not be this indication of his desire and intention in the Bill? I earnestly trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): May I start by associating myself with the tribute paid by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and by her hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) to the work of the mental welfare officers? We are obviously going to lean on them very heavily when the Bill becomes an Act and their work is going to increase rather than decrease.
When we discussed this matter in Committee it was quite clear that there was a general feeling that it would be advantageous to the people carrying out these important tasks to have a recognised qualification. At that time the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) was particularly concerned about the matter. He felt that we were getting a lot of advice which was tending in certain directions, and he wondered whether we would be right to take it or not.
At that time I advised the Committee against accepting the Amendment, in the form in which it then was, because we were at the point in time when the Younghusband Committee was about to publish its Report. Indeed, I gave the hon. Member an assurance, which I am happy to say I just managed to honour by the margin of one day, that the Report would be published by the time we reached the Report stage.
The hon. Member will know, if he has studied the main conclusions of the Younghusband Report. that the recommendations germane to this matter are the one which referred to the setting up of a National Council for Social Work Training and that which referred to a programme for a training in social work leading to a national qualification.
The Report consists of 350 pages and has been between three and four years in preparation. It will obviously require very careful study as its conclusions are obviously highly germane to the point made in the Amendment, and we are not resting on this position. My right hon. and learned Friend is already seeking the views of the local authority associations, and the comments of the interested professional and other organisations will certainly be welcomed by him. I do not think that we should take a decision about the matter until after the consultations are completed, but we have at least now reached a further stage than we did in Committee.
I would remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend has power under Section 66 of the National Health Service Act to make the necessary regulations to prescribe these qualifications at the appropriate time. Therefore, I would advise hon. Members to let us study thoroughly this most important document. As I say, it was published only yesterday, and it is obviously highly relevant to whatever we decide to do. We have the necessary powers to our hand to take whatever further steps may seem to be necessary. I hope that with that explanation it will not be thought necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not found it possible to go a little further this afternoon. In fact, I am sure that an examination of the words which he uttered in Committee would indicate


that he went a little further then than he has gone today.
The fact is that the Younghusband Committee has now reported in very clear and specific terms about the desirability for a course of training and recognised qualification for mental welfare officers. There is no need to have further discussions with anybody about the matter. The only people who were not convinced of the desirability of having this training and qualification were the people at the Ministry of Health. I imagine that now, with this formidable body of opinion behind the views expressed all over the field of mental health for many years, the Ministry, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman in particular, must agree that this is something which needs doing and doing urgently.
The Younghusband Committee not only expressed its views on the desirability of training, but also set out very clearly, and, I thought, in very reasonable terms indeed, how the existing staffs doing the work of mental welfare officers, and doing it so admirably, could be worked into a system of training and qualification. I do not want to go over all the details. Briefly, if they had had a long experience and were over a certain age they would not be required to do anything. Below that age and with a shorter experience they would be required to do part I of the examination, and below the age of 40 would be required to take the whole course for the full qualification. That seemed to be a very reasonable compromise.
Recognising that no one is keener on this matter than the officers themselves and their organisation, I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a little more assurance of the fact that they accept the need for this reform and will do something about it quickly.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the powers for making regulations which the Minister has under the National Health Service Act. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Minister is likely to make such regulations? It is not as if the Younghusband Report had gone against our view; on the contrary, it has gone very much in favour of the point

of view we have been putting forward in the Committee and are now putting forward on the Floor of the House. Can the Minister not say that he has a definite intention of doing this, in the absence of anything else which might turn up to prevent it? It seems that he is trying to do something at the appropriate time. When is the appropriate time? If he could give us an assurance on that we might be prepared to allow this matter to proceed.

Mr. Thompson: I am very sensible of the discussion there has been over this question. I do feel that with this great body of advice, which was published only yesterday, we are not being unreasonable in asking for a little time to consider it and to ask interested people to give their views on it. If it will help the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and his hon. Friends in any way, I may say that when the Bill reaches another place we shall have had time to digest this advice further and it might be possible to go further.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister agree that there shall be a qualification for all future officers, but the Minister wishes to have time to consider the form of qualification?

Mr. Thompson: What we require is time to consider the whole of the implications of the recommendations of the Younghusband Committee. We certainly do not shut our minds to the particular point made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary has failed to answer two matters which are of importance. He was asked a direct question by my hon. Friend. He has had power since the passing of the National Health Service Act to make regulations. In this limited sphere, that was somewhat premature, because the duties of the mental welfare officer have somewhat altered, but if this Bill goes through they will have a much happier duty placed upon them by the new Clause which the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved and for which he secured the acquiescence of the House. It is now the duty of the mental welfare officer to initiate steps to take people to hospital and it is his duty to make the necessary recommendations in the necessary forms.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)—a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—said in Committee, N.A.L.G.O. expressed a very strong view on this matter. It is all very well saying, "We are consulting people"—the advice of every representative person connected with this question has been, volunteered to the Minister. They all think it is an undesirable thing that men charged with so responsible a function and now with statutory duties, for which they are accountable if there is a breach or a neglect, can be appointed without any qualification at all, except perhaps, a remote relationship to a local councillor, or someone like that.
The problem of a transition period does not present, and never has presented. a problem. Time after time when this House has imposed qualifications on persons holding offices we have made suitable provisions to protect those who have performed the duty and who are performing it satisfactorily. We have never sought to impose academic qualifications on elderly officers doing their duty well. There always has to be a transitional provision, and I do not think it has presented great difficulty in practice.
Waiting for the Younghusband Working Party's Report in that situation is a rather remote alibi for failure to make a decision. The Minister has had advice and knows the view expressed from both sides of the Committee, from which, so far as I recollect, there was no particular dissent. All he has to say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who put the matter with clarity, is whether he is deferring the matter because he is considering the precise definition of the necessary qualification and that he has decided some qualifications must be encouraged. If he said that, we should be a great deal nearer our objective and, perhaps, the details of the qualifications could be left to further discussion, maybe through the usual channels. Surely the Minister is in the position now to say to the House, "I am not going to permit my powers under Section 66 of the National Health Service Act to be abused. I am going to exercise them in respect of these qualifications, but I should like another day or two to think over the qualifications. I shall let the House know

when I have finished that particular mental exercise."

Mrs. Braddock: I completely agree with the comments of my hon. Friends, but there is a point about which I am a little disturbed and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear it up. If these two words are put in and we get the qualification, on what date will it be necessary to start appointing duly qualified officers?
There will have to be a period of training. There will have to be people appointed between now and the time when the qualifications are dealt with or obtained. The inclusion of these words at the moment would not, I hope, prevent local authorities and those responsible from appointing people because they have not the qualifications. If these words were in without some specific date being included, would it be possible to put in a date at which duly qualified officers would be appointed? I should like to be perfectly certain that the inclusion of these words will not mean that when the Bill becomes an Act the only people local authorities can appoint will be those who are duly qualified officers, although there will not be the necessary number of people to accept the positions in the interim period.
I agree that in future there must he duly qualified officers holding a special qualification, but I am a little concerned about the fact that local authorities will have to make appointments before those qualifications are obtained. I do not want local authorities to be in the position of not being able to make appointments of people for work in the extended service because those people are not qualified and have not had an opportunity of being qualified because time has not allowed for them to become qualified.

Mr. Walker-Smith: These are exactly the sort of complications which arise in this matter. This is one of the reasons why it is a little difficult, as it were, to legislate off the cuff. As I think we all know, when making any change in a system which affects the professional careers and livelihood of people as well as the interests of local authorities, we have to be able to tie in very clearly the transitional provisions, the timing and so on. It is precisely the sort of very practical consideration to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention which militates


against doing what we are asked to do and writing these words, "duly qualified," into the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Sorensen: As the Minister himself is competent to decide who is and who is not duly qualified, is it not possible for him to declare a certain number of officers are qualified, but that in future an extra qualification will be necessary?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, not in the Bill as drafted. That would require a further provision somewhere else in the Bill saying what would be considered "duly qualified". It might be possible to put such a provision in the Bill, but in any case that would necessitate action in another place. I do not want it to be thought that my hon. Friend or I are in any way dragging our feet about this matter. We are not. We have received a very authoritative and weighty—in every sense of the word—Report from the Younghusband Committee which, among other things, recommends the provision of a new general training in social work to be provided outside the universities, leading to a national qualification. The stress there is upon qualification. That is obviously the road which we would all wish to travel, but we have to tie up these various points both with the local authority associations and with any professional organisations interested.
I would prefer not to be pressed to put in these words now, because they are necessarily incomplete and may give rise to the sort of misunderstanding to which the hon. Lady has referred. We shall be able by the time this Bill goes to another place to see whether we can proceed more appropriately and quickly by regulation or by introducing something in another place, and we shall seek so far as in us lies to expedite the consultations, which I am sure all hon. Members, and especially those who have personal experience of local authority work and the like, will recognise to be necessary.
It is not all quite as easy as some hon. Members made it appear, because of the necessity to consult and the need that we should have effective transitional arrangements, whatever may ultimately be decided. For example, one recalls the Dentists Act, 1921, when some people came in on their qualifications and some came in because, though they had not got academic qualifications, they had that other sort of qualification which derives

from long experience and practice in actually doing the job. It is all these things which we have to get straight, and we will get them straight as soon as we can, before our consultations, and then proceed either by way of regulations or Amendment in another place, whichever seems to be the most appropriate.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister is now on an entirely different point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), whose point was entirely practical. In effect, if we put these words in it may mean that we would be unable to obtain sufficient recruits to operate the Bill. That is a very practical approach, but why was it not said in the first place. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary come here and tell us that there is something curious to consider, something abstract? This is the practical approach. If there are not sufficient people to operate the Bill, then we must reconsider the position.
On the other hand, I would say that at this stage the Minister should know that. This is not a question which he has to discover from the Report of the Young-husband Committee. He should know that. He has a vast Ministry and should know precisely how many people there are whom we could secure to do this work. He still says that he may be able to do something in another place, but I should have thought that he would have known the position now and would know precisely how many people were available.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am anxious not to confront the local authority associations and others with a fait accompli at the same time as I am putting the matter to them for consultation. I think that is right.

Dr. Summerskill: I am a little sorry that all of us here this afternoon, who found great interest in this Bill, have not been able to make this courteous gesture towards mental welfare officers in this place. I am a little jealous on this score of what the Minister is prepared to do in another place, and I am sorry that the Minister did not find that extra time in which to have said "Yes, this is a good thing and these excellent people should know that their prestige and their status have been increased in this place." However, in view of the assurance which the


right hon. and learned Gentleman has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9.—(FUNCTIONS OF CHILDREN AUTHORITIES.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, after "accommodated", insert:
in a home or other accommodation provided "— [Mr. R. Thompson.]

Clause 11.—(EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFI- CATION UNDER EDUCATION ACT, 1944.)

Mr. R. Thompson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, to leave out subsection (2).
Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House to take this Amendment together with the two Amendments immediately following, and the three Amendments to the Second Schedule, as they are all related.
5.15 p.m.
This slightly complicated drafting exercise arises from a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) in our earlier proceedings, reported in column 196 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The right hon. Lady wanted to provide for the case, which occasionally arises, where one local health authority is responsible for a child's care, but the child is housed outside that authority's boundaries. Her Amendment to deal with this situation was technically defective, and my right hon. and learned Friend undertook to consider the point, and a similar point that arose in relation to a local education authority, and make the necessary Amendments to meet them. That is achieved by these Amendments. Although it probably seems simple enough, in fact it is not easy to find a form of words to put into a statute to define which should be the responsible authority.

Dr. Summerskill: I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has found means whereby he can regularise the position i1 the case of the child living outside the boundaries of the local authority, and I accept the Amendment.

Mr. Sorensen: May I deal with another aspect of this Clause, and ask the Minister whether the local health authority, under the Clause as now amended, will still be

able, if necessary, and where it is desirable, to transfer actual teaching responsibility to the education authority? Is it possible for the education authority in that case to come in and take over from the local health authority?

Mr. Thompson: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(POWER TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT TRAINING CENTRES.)

Amendments made: In page 7, line 9, to leave out from "Where" to "the" in line 14, and insert:
it appears to the local health authority to be appropriate that a child of compulsory school age who is the subject of a decision recorded under section fifty-seven of the Education Act, 1944. should receive training at a centre provided or made available under arrangements made by that authority under section twenty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

In line 17 to leave out "so provided", and insert:
being a centre provided or made available as aforesaid."—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Clause 14.—(REGISTRATION OF NURSING HOMES UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 9 to 11, and insert:
(3) In this Part of this Act "registration authority" in relation to a mental nursing home, means the council of the county or county borough in which the home is situated; and the power of a county council under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Public Health Act, 1936, to delegate its functions under Part VI of that Act relating to nursing homes to the council of a county district shall include power to delegate its functions under this Part of this Act relating to mental nursing homes.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 14 applies to mental nursing homes—as defined in subsection (2)—the registration provisions of Part VI of the Public Health Act, 1936, with the modifications and provisions provided for in Clauses 14 to 18, and the last three lines of subsection (2) define the registration authority, in effect, as
the council having the power to register nursing homes under Part VI of the Public Health Act.
That means the county or county borough, or in cases where the power has been delegated under Section 194 of the 1936 Act, the county district.
Under these provisions as they stand the result may be that where a county


has already delegated its registration functions in relation to nursing homes, the new registration function relating to mental nursing homes would now automatically be delegated. The object of the Amendment is to enable those counties which have already delegated the registration of nursing homes to consider afresh, on the requisite application from the county district, whether they wish to delegate a similar function in relation to mental nursing homes. It is necessary that the application should be considered afresh in this way, because the Bill gives important new functions to the registration authority.
To take an example, under Clause 47 (3) there is power to discharge patients detained in mental nursing homes. A county district, which was perfectly competent to carry out the functions of registration in relation to ordinary nursing homes, might not necessarily have the specialist staff needed to carry out all the new functions. To take an obvious example, not all county districts which exercise delegated functions under Section 194 of the Public Health Act will be exercising delegated mental health functions under the Local Government Act, 1958, and they therefore will not all have mental welfare officers, whom they would require for this sort of work.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17.—(INSPECTION OF MENTAL NURSING HOMES AND VISITING OF PATIENTS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30 at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this section".
This and the next Amendment are paving Amendments for the Amendment, in page 11, line 12, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we dealt with all three together.
The pattern of this Clause is broadly that subsection (1) empowers any person authorised by the Minister or by the registration authority to enter and inspect mental nursing homes. A registration authority, of course, is defined in Clause 14 as a borough or county borough council. Subsection (2) provides that regulations made by the Minister under Clause 16 (1) may include regulations

about the authorisation of visits of inspection on behalf of the registration authority.
Subsection (3) empowers persons who are authorised to inspect to interview and examine a patient.
That is the broad pattern of the Clause and there was no dissent from it in general or in principle in the Standing Committee, but there was a good deal of comment and criticism on one specific point. That was in relation to its application to the four registered hospitals which, as the House knows, are of considerable repute and long standing—The Retreat at York, Cheadle Royal near Manchester, Barnwood House at Gloucester, and St. Andrews at Northampton. The suggestion was made that these hospitals should be exempt from local authority inspection and should be inspected from the centre as they are now by the Board of Control. I gave an undertaking in this regard as reported in column 206 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which I said:
We are on the narrower question of these four registered hospitals. I can see the point in regard to them and I will consider it further between now and the Report stage and see whether there is any possibility of working out a special provision for these four hospitals without detriment to the general pattern."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 24th February, 1959; c. 206]
I have sought to give effect to this undertaking in the third of the Amendments which introduces a new subsection (3) incorporating the existing subsection (2) but, in addition, enabling the Minister to make special provision in regulations under Clause 16 in respect of the present registered hospitals. Under this he is to be able to impose conditions or restrictions on the exercise of the registration authority's powers in relation both to the inspection and visiting of patients in these hospitals.
My intention is to use this regulation-making power in order to arrange that persons authorised by the Minister should take part in all the periodic inspections of the hospitals, but that, albeit the van would be taken by the Minister's inspectors, they should be accompanied by persons authorised by the registration authority in order keep that authority in the picture.
I should draw attention to other points. This will not apply to ad hoc visits under


Clause 17 (3), which are in response to a complaint. One hopes that this is a remote possibility as these registered hospitals are of high repute, but if the occasion arose it would be more appropriate for it to be dealt with by the registration authority, because it is the registration authority.
I should also draw attention to the rearrangement involved in these Amendments. Since the new subsection governs both inspection and visits, it is to be inserted as subsection (3), and the existing subsection (3), which relates only to the interviewing of patients will be renumbered subsection (2).
It is our intention that the arrangement for inspection and for the investigation of complaints should be equally as effective in these hospitals as in other mental nursing homes, but that it should be appropriate to the special circumstances of these hospitals. In Committee I drew attention to the fact that we must make it clear, for the reassurance of the public, that we attach importance to inspection in the case of all. I think that we have the right solution in the Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am glad that the Minister has managed to find a way of exempting these four registered hospitals from the normal provisions of local authority inspection. When discussing the Amendment which I tabled in Committee we said that these hospitals had no objection to being registered but that it was felt that, with the very long and distinguished record which each had, it was a little invidious to make them alone of the existing mental hospitals subject to local health authority inspection. Not that there is anything in itself derogatory in local health authority inspection, but we pointed out that we did not think that the normal staffs of local health authorities would be appropriate to carry out the kind of inspection needed of such a large hospital.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister has found it necessary to make the one exclusion. He says that he naturally wants to keep the registration authority in the picture, and representatives of that authority may accompany the officials of his Department when they carry out their inspections from the centre. That is all right, but why is it necessary to exclude the powers of visiting under subsection (3), which are for

the purpose of investigating any complaints or where there is reasonable cause to believe that the patient is not receiving proper care? Why is it necessary for those investigations or inspections to be carried out by the registration authority? The same objections hold good there, in that normally the staff who are inspecting a mental nursing home would hardly be appropriate for this purpose. Why should these four hospitals be placed in any different position from all the other hospitals where inspection is made from the centre and for whose inspection the Minister is responsible?
5.30 p.m.
By and large I think that we welcome this set of Amendments. I wonder whether the Minister will between now and the Bill going to another place think again about whether it is necessary to make this exclusion and whether the whole of the powers of inspection conferred under Clause l7 in respect of these four hospitals could not be exercised from the centre rather than by the local health authority, whilst at the same time keeping it in the picture as the registration authority, about which there will be no objections?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am always very ready to think again on these problems, especially when asked to do so by hon. Members with the degree of expertise and attention to these subjects which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has.
The hon. Member may be under some misapprehension in regard to the intended operation of subsection (3). It is true that on the drafting the person authorised under subsection (1) to inspect is the same as the person who is authorised to visit and interview under subsection (3). He may be either the emissary of the registration authority or of the Minister. The subsection (3) procedure is the procedure, broadly, in response to complaint. Though there is a permissive power whereby either can do it, I visualise that this will normally be the function of the registration authority. I have only reserved power for a representative of the Minister in order to take account of the exceptional case.
The reason why I do it in that way is this. This procedure is closely


associated with the registration function. The mental nursing home is registered. Then, if there are complaints, it is a matter for the registration authority to inform itself about them. I envisage the subsection (3) procedure as being normally one for the registration authority.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "subsection (3)". Does he mean the old subsection (3) or the new one?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am speaking of the old one. I mean the one giving the power of examination.

Mr. Ede: It will become subsection (2) as a result of the Amendments.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is so, and I indicated that in moving the Amendment. I am sorry if there has been any confusion about that.
That is the way I see it. I will certainly think about it further, but I think that the balance is now right. In the exceptional case the Minister may do it. In the ordinary case the registration authority will do it. On the subsection (2) aspect of it, it would probably be better to leave the registered hospital in the same general pattern as the rest.

Dr. Summerskill: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will not mind me saying this, but I have not been so sympathetic about this as other hon. Members. I see all kinds of difficulties ahead. Once we start making these exceptions, other people will come along and ask that they should be regarded as exceptional cases. How does the Minister define an "exceptional case"?

Mr. Walker-Smith: One cannot define an "exceptional case" until the case arises, because that is what an exceptional case is. An exceptional case is something which when it arises is found not to fit into the normal and predictable pattern.

Mr. Ede: Following upon what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said, as I understand it there are only four hospitals, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman named. They are defined in the Amendment as being hospitals

registered as mentioned in subsection (9) of section two hundred and thirty-one of the Lunacy Act, 1890.
I take it that there can be no more in the future, because the Lunacy Act, 1890 is completely repealed by the Eighth Schedule. Therefore, as from the passing of the Bill, the Lunacy Act, 1890 will disappear and it will not be possible for a fifth, sixth, seventh or any other hospital to be brought in, unless such hospitals rush in now very quickly and become registered before the Bill becomes law.
Would it not be better to put the names of these hospitals in the Bill so as to make clear that this is the limited range to which the exception applies? In the distant future copies of the Lunacy Act, 1890 will become exceedingly rare and, even if an hon. Member goes into the Division Lobbies to get the Statutes Revised, the Lunacy Act, 1890 will not appear. There may be difficulties in identifying these hospitals for people trying to think up if somehow or other they were registered under that Act, unless the four hospitals are named in the Bill so that there is no doubt as to the limited range to which the exception applies.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for that suggestion. Where there are only four such hospitals and where, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, there cannot be another such hospital because of the repeal of the Act under which those hospitals are registered, it might seem attractive to legislate eo nomine rather than by reference in this way. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know from his very long experience of these matters that it is difficult so to do, and indeed I think that there might be some danger that it would hybridise the Bill. I think that the word is right, but the right hon. Gentleman is more familiar than I am with these constitutional matters.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish us to court that risk, and perhaps therefore it would be better to leave it as it is, knowing that the counter risk to which he draws attention is slender. There will always be copies of the Lunacy Act, 1890, available, if not in the unexpurgated statutes, at any rate in the older editions of Matthews. It is very well known at present that the four


hospitals are the four in question. I do not think that we are running any practical risk by leaving it as it is.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 39, leave out subsection (2).

In page 11, line 12, at end insert:
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) of section sixteen of this Act may make provision with respect to the exercise on behalf of registration authorities of the powers conferred by this section; and such regulations may in particular provide—

(a) for imposing conditions or restrictions with respect to the exercise of those powers in relation to mental nursing homes which, immediately before the commencement of this Act, were registered hospitals; and
(b) subject as aforesaid, for requiring the inspection of mental nursing homes under subsection (1) of this section to be carried out on such occasions, or at such intervals, as may be prescribed by the regulations.


(4) In this section "registered hospital" means a hospital registered as mentioned in subsection (9) of section two hundred and thirty-one of the Lunacy Act, 1890.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 22.—(POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION OF OTHER PREMISES.)

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, after "premises" to insert "not being a hospital".
We had a fairly long discussion on Clause 22 in Committee, but it did not deal with the specific point to which the Amendment is directed. Since the Committee stage of the Bill it has been represented to me that under the wording of the Clause a mental welfare officer would be, or would appear to be, entitled to enter a hospital if he had reason to believe that there was a mentally disordered patient not under proper care. I can see that this is a highly unlikely occurrence, but at the same time it would also be an even more undesirable occurrence if there were to be the sort of conflict between the health authority and the hospital authority which the incursion of a mental welfare officer bent on such an errand would involve.
The Minister may say that these words are not necessary, but I am sure that he will agree that it is not the intention that the mental welfare officer shall have power of entry into a hospital, so, for the sake of clarification, it is, perhaps, desirable to include these words.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is not intended that the mental welfare officers shall be able to inspect the hospital premises. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is unlikely that they would make the attempt, but I equally agree with him that, in the Bill as drafted, there is nothing to preclude it. Therefore, I am happy to accept the Amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having brought it forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(APPLICATION TO LONDON.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38, to leave out "as if" and to insert:
subject to the following modifications, that is to say—
(a)
This Amendment, and those in lines 39, 41 and 44 are all paving Amendments for the longer one to line 47, so perhaps, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I may deal with them together quite shortly.
The Public Health Act, 1936—some of the provisions of which are applied to the mental nursing homes by Clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17—does not apply to London, and this Clause applies the corresponding provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, to mental nursing homes in London. The substantial Amendment in line 47 really makes provision for London equivalent to that which we have already made in the new subsection (3) of Clause 14, which was the subject of the Government Amendment in page 9, line 9.
The Public Health (London) Act uses the term "local supervising authority" in relation to nursing homes, and that term is defined in Section 240 as the Common Council for the City of London, and the London County Council for the rest of the county. Section 249 enables the London County Council to delegate its powers under Part XI, relating to nursing homes, to metropolitan boroughs, save only for the power to make bye-laws. The Amendment that I now move applies this Section to mental nursing homes in the same way as the Amendment in page 9, line 9 applies Section 194 of the Public Health Act, 1936, to places outside London.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have tried hard to follow the Minister in this rather complex maze of cross-references. Can he just say, quite simply, whether or not the effect of the Amendment is that Metropolitan boroughs are enabled to be registration authorities under delegated powers from the L.C.C.?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 39, leave out "were" and insert "shall be".

In line 41, leave out "and as if" and insert "(b)".

In line 44, leave out "were" and insert "shall be".

In line 47, at end insert:
and
(c) for subsection (3) of section fourteen there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(3) In this Part of this Act "registration authority", in relation to a mental nursing home, means the local supervising authority as defined by section two hundred and forty of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936; and section two hundred and forty-nine of that Act (which enables the London County Council to delegate to the council of a metropolitan borough certain powers exercisable under Part XI of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference to the said Part XI included a reference to this Part of this Act so far as it relates to mental nursing homes"—[Mr. Walker-Smith.)

Clause 25.—(ADMISSION FOR OBSERVATION.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 4. to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
(1) A patient may be admitted to a hospital and there detained for the period allowed by this section, in pursuance of an application (in this Act referred to as an application for admission for observation) made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) An application for admission for observation may be made in respect of a patient on the grounds—

(a) that he is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital under observation (with or without other medical treatment) for at least a limited period; and
(b) that he ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons.


In effect, subsection (1) of Clause 25 prescribes two basic criteria for admis-

sion for observation. First, there is the nature and degree of mental disorder and, secondly, the interests of the patient's health or safety, or the protection of others. Many constructive suggestions for improving the Clause were made in Committee, but they were all made within the agreed ambit of these basic criteria. In fact, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) then said:
I am glad also that he"—
that is, myself—
has agreed to reconsider the wording of subsection (1). We all hope that he will find more suitable words. He has also made clear that while he is doing so he does not propose such a change of words as to change the conception of the Clause. He is not proposing, as was suggested by one of his hon. Friends, that there should be such a change in the Clause as to make a change in the whole approach to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing, Committee E, 26th February, 1959, c. 248.]
The hon. Gentleman was right. I am not doing that. I am operating within the framework we have, but I am seeking to make certain improvements to it.
The criticisms of the Clause were, in effect, three. The first criticism was of the phrase we have in the Bill "renders him suitable" for detention. Those words were criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) and also, I think, by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill), who criticised the phraseology as being redolent of the language of the cookery hook, and more suited to that than to the language of a Statute.
We have, therefore, sought to find a substitute for that phrase by using the words
… warrants the detention of the patient …
That, I think, steers a reasonably middle course between the words to which objection was taken and the alternatives suggested in Committee, "essential". "desirable", and the like.
The second criticism was of the use of the word "expedient" in paragraph (b) of Clause 25 (1). On that, we had some very interesting discussion, fortified by references to the Scriptures and to the Prayer Book, as to the proper meaning of the word. The fear was expressed that it was a word that had degenerated in meaning and that there might be sonic implication that patients could be detained on grounds of expediency—which


was, perhaps, a little exaggerated. However, we have taken care of that by substituting the simpler word "ought," which is better in this context.
The third criticism was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who made so many valuable and constructive contributions in Committee. My hon. Friend said:
It will be seen that no Amendment is made to Clause 25 (1, a). In other words, all that the recommending doctor has to do is to say that the patient is suitable for observation. I think that he should have in mind that the patient is also suitable for treatment, if treatment is to follow observation. This is no more than a drafting point but it needs looking at and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 26th February, 1959; c. 247.]
I have done so. I think, on consideration that the conception embodied in the present subsection (4), which was moved into the Bill on the initiative of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred, would be better embodied in the statement of the grounds on which the application for admission may be made. This is achieved by the wording of subsection (2, a) of the Amendment. The words
(with or without other medical treatment)
have been inserted after the word "observation".
Having taken care of those three points which attracted comment and criticism, the recasting of this important Clause is completed by the Amendment in page 14, line 20, to omit subsection (4). In general, the Amendment does not change the basic concept of the Clause. We were anxious not to do that, and we were fortified in our view by the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, which 1 have quoted. Observation is still an essential object of admission under the Clause, but the Amendment makes it clear that the patient who clearly needs at least a short period of treatment can be admitted under the Clause. One good effect of doing this is that it makes it possible to limit Clause 29, which deals with the emergency procedure, to admissions for observation, thus meeting another point raised in Committee to which we shall come in a moment.
Finally, from the point of view of drafting, we have taken the opportunity in this fasciculus of Amendments to make considerable improvements of drafting and presentation.

Mr. K. Robinson: There is little doubt that the Minister has improved the wording of the Clause. He and his advisers must have worked quite hard on it since the Committee stage. I think that on the whole, in the felicity of the wording, the new Clause is a great improvement on the old one. It is far better to say that the patient ought to be detained than to say that it is expedient for him to be detained. I think that all the other changes of phrase are for the better.
I am not so sure about the change of subsection (4), which we wrote into the Bill in Committee, being placed into subsection (2, a) as one of the grounds for admission, but I do not feel that it makes much difference either way.
I should like to ask the Minister about two points on subsection (2. a) What is the reason for the words
(with or without other medical treatment)"?
Is the implication that observation in itself is a kind of medical treatment? If that is so, I have not known of it in the past. Also, why do the words
for at least a limited period
suddenly make their appearance in the Amendment? I do not think that they were in the Clause as originally drafted.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say what is meant by the words
(with or without other medical treatment)
and
for at least a limited period".
We all know that the procedure is limited to twenty-eight days.

Dr. D. Johnson: I should like to express my appreciation to my right hon. and learned Friend for altering the phaseology, since the Amendment, as he was kind enough to say, was at my suggestion originally. I think that I can lay claim to the cookery simile which he attributed to the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said to me in an aside, possibly having my hotel past in mind, the chef and not the housewife was responsible for this.
The new phraseology is unexceptionable and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend and his advisers should be congratulated on it. I have only one rider to add to my approval, which I appreciate I should have brought forward at an earlier stage of the Bill. It concerns my fears as to the latitude of interpretation that might be given to the interests of the patient's health. As I have said, I appreciate that I should have put forward extensive arguments on that matter earlier and I wish only to mention it.
I feel that the Clauses as amended are a great improvement on the old ones. I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the trouble to which he has gone in improving them.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. Are we discussing the three Amendments together? I think that we are, but I should like to be clear on the point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was under the impression that we were discussing the Amendment in page 14, line 4, by itself.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I think that the Amendment improves the Clause, but I am sorry that the Minister did not go a little further. The Clause relates to admission for observation, which sounds very harmless. Of course, every patient admitted to hospital will be observed. Subsection (4) reads:
Nothing in this section"—
that is, relating to admission for observation—
shall preclude a patient admitted for observation from receiving such treatment as the responsible medical officer considers appropriate,
From a superficial glance at the Clause, it may be thought that we are concerned with observing and possibly treating a patient, but the important point is that the Clause relates to compulsory detention, that patients are compulsorily detained, are robbed of their liberty and will lose certain civil rights. This can be brought about by an application for admission for observation being founded on the written recommendation in the prescribed form of two medical practitioners. As the Minister is aware, I think that that is an insufficient safeguard of

the liberty of the individual, and I much regret that he has not considered it wise to include in the Amendment the necessity for the approval of a justice of the peace being sought before a person can be compulsorily detained, thus losing his or her liberty and some civil rights.

Dr. Bennett: As one who was, unfortunately, not able to take part in the deliberations in Committee, but who has had to admit large numbers of people to hospitals under the former law, may I say how startled I am at the ease with which it has been found possible to introduce such radical Amendments to the wording, thus bringing it more or less into line with the language which we speak nowadays as compared with the previous cumbersome and not very precise wording? I congratulate all concerned on that, and I am sure that it will make the administration of the Bill a great deal easier.

Mr. Hale: I think that the wording is an improvement, and I do not desire to criticise it. I do not know what "warrants" mean and I doubt whether anyone else does, but, on the whole, I think that the word is not particularly objectionable. We know that anxiety neurosis is an occupational disease of Parliamentary draftsmen and that anything too specific has to be excluded for fear of judicial interpretation.
I listened to the few words of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) with great sympathy. I feel exactly the same. This is a very good Clause if it works right, but it can be a very bad one if it works wrong. In dealing with a matter of this kind we are all conscious of the ambivalence to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On the one hand, there is the question of civil rights, freedom and liberty. On the other hand, there is the desire that the forlorn and neglected shall be able to receive the benefit of treatment. Therefore, in the Bill we have a Clause which permits a person to be compulsorily taken to hospital for observation. On the question of appeals to mental health tribunals, and so on, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was very forthcoming—I appreciated his attitude throughout—and made considerable offers of protection and improvement in the regulations.
6.0 p.m.
We have provided that there will have to be two doctors to certify—in this case, only two general praotitioners, perhaps. I am not sure that they may not be better. We have provided that the hospital authorities themselves must be satisfied and that the hospital authorities can release a person at once if they come to the conclusion that a release is justified. And so we have provided a series of effective provisions.
What worries me about it is that one is apt to talk about these Clauses in terms of individual cases which one can visualise. One can see the old, the isolated and the slightly mentally affected elderly person living at home who, by a week or two of chemotherapy, may be put in a condition in which he can be made to enter a decent home, not a mental home, and take his own part with his fellows. On the individual cases, we can see the good that can come.
One wondered vaguely whether this sort of provision could apply in the cases of the sexually affected and whether those who suffered from what some of us think may be mental compulsions, whether self-acquired or not, could be sent for observation with the possibility of being advised of the appropriate form of treatment or being made to receive the appropriate form of treatment.
En every way, however, we are providing, as we must, that a man can be sent for observation and can then be detained for ever. With all the safeguards we are putting in, that is what we are saying. Two medical practitioners must first give their approval. The difficulty in all these respects is that our procedure imposes upon us the necessary duty of considering each Clause in vacuo, of taking it as it comes and of not being sure what finally will be the protection provided in subsequent Clauses.
We have already provided that this power can be exercised by a mental health officer of no qualification. And not only that he can exercise it—we have virtually said that he must. We have said that it is his duty to make the order if he comes to the conclusion, to use the terms of the Amendment, that the circumstances warrant it if the nature or degree of the mental disability warrants the patient's being sent for treatment. These are

necessary and proper, but somewhat vague, words. If "the state of his health" or "to protect other persons" be added, it is the duty of the mental health officer to take the necessary procedure.
Having said that, I do not dissent from what has been said by any one of my hon. Friends. The provisions in this and the next Amendment to the Clause are an improvement. On the whole, the Minister has very well tried to meet some of the difficulties that were expressed in Committee. The Clause, properly administered under proper provisions by qualified people, may be of great service to many members of the community who need that service. I leave it with a little fear, a little wonder and a little anxiety, 'however, as to how far, if we do not watch the regulation's carefully and if we do not ensure that they provide proper provisions, we may not have cases raised in this House in 'the years to come which will show that we have given a power which, unless it is watched, could become a possible serious invasion of human liberty.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I welcome the Amendments. They do not so much produce drafting changes as make the Clause clearer than it was. That is of the greatest importance and it is really the answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
We are now dealing with that Part of the Bill which deals with compulsion. The general rule about compulsion will be to be in for a year, or, possibly. a longer period. The Clause deals with the case where there will be compulsion—in the first place, at all events—only for the short period of a month. It is much better if those who have to be put under some form of restraint come in for only a month and can go out when the month is over and, perhaps, never be subject to compulsion again. That is why this is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It is important from that point of view in that it will help in the general sense for which hon. Members have pressed. Its clarification will be valuable, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the new wording.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I should like to deal with one or two specific points which


have been put and with the more general observations made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and others. First, however, perhaps I might thank hon. Members who have given a welcome to our recasting of the Clause and to the generous things which several hon. Members have been good enough to say.
To reply, first, to the relatively minor questions, in Clause 25
the detention of the patient in a hospital under observation … for at least a limited period
is intended to be in contrast with the provision in Clause 26. The wording
warrants the detention of the patient in a a hospital
for medical treatment points the distinction between the two Clauses: that, in regard to the one, the treatment required may be of a short-term nature and can be done in the observation period without necessitating the rather more full-scale procedure of Clause 26, in which the application is for admission for treatment, and where there is nothing to suggest that it will be of such a short-term nature.

Mr. K. Robinson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained why he has used the words
for at least a limited period".
I do not think that the words achieve the object that the Minister is setting out to achieve. Surely, if he wants to make a contrast with the procedure for admission for treatment, the words should be "for a limited period". Those words prefaced by "at least" imply a more extended period.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That might be so. Before using the Clause, however, one must be satisfied that there is a necessity for detention at all. That is the reason for "at least a limited period". The words do not appear in Clause 26 because it is without limit of time in the sense that the patient must be suitable for detention. Under Clause 26, one normally would not be able to have in mind at the beginning the precise sort of period for which treatment would be required. I will certainly look at the drafting again, and, if it is possible to improve it still further in that respect, I will seek to do so in another place.
On the more general points which have been raised, I do not think that I would

be in order on this Amendment in pursuing the reference by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) to the justices of the peace, on which he made his case in Committee. It did not commend itself to the Committee in spite of the eloquence and persuasiveness of the hon. Member's advocacy. It is in a different form on the Order Paper again and it is a matter for Mr. Deputy-Speaker to determine. If it comes up for discussion I will deal with it more fully then, but I do not think that I should be in order in pursuing it now.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was rather pessimistic in his references. As he was good enough to say, we have taken a great deal of care with this and the next following Clause, which are really basic in the structure that we are building. We had in mind all the time to try and assemble a structure which would reflect the balance of the considerations we must have in mind. They are, firstly, the liberty of the subject, secondly, the necessity of bringing treatment to bear where treatment is required and can be beneficial to the individual, and, thirdly, the consideration of the protection of the public. All through I have tried steadily to keep in mind that what we are trying to do is to erect as balanced a structure as we may which can give effect to all those things in harmony with each other. That is the underlying purpose we had in mind in making the provisions in the Clause.
Under Clause 25 the patient comes in for observation or for short-term treatment. He can stay only 28 days under Clause 25 procedure because, as the House will see, the last three lines of the next Amendment will read:
…but shall not be detained thereafter unless, before the expiration of that period, he has become liable to be detained by virtue of a subsequent application, order or direction under any of the following provisions of this Act.
This, in effect, means that if he needs long-term treatment we must bring to bear the appropriate provisions of Clause 26.
Those who have been closely concerned with the Bill in Committee know that there is a provision for the keeping of these things under review. We have introduced the mechanism of the mental health review tribunals. Therefore, we have these varying stages at which a


detained patient can bring his case to the scrutiny of one of these tribunals and the tribunal can consider whether or not it is right that he should be there or whether he should be discharged. I think that we have an effective mechanism for ensuring the liberty of the subject while at the same time trying to make what provision we can to ensure that effective treatment can be brought to bear on those who can benefit by it. As we proceed further with the Report stage, the hon. Member for Oldham, West will be glad to see that we are proposing further Amendments with a view to strengthening and improving the procedures in respect of the safeguarding of the liberty of the subject. I hope, therefore, that we may have the Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: I think that I deflected the right hon. and learned Gentleman from saying a few words about "other" medical treatment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The word is inserted because all treatment implies observation in any event, but I will have a look at the wording. If the word is tautological it shall come out.

Amendment agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and to insert:
(3) Subject to the provisions of section fifty-two of this Act (in a case where an application is made under that section for transferring the functions of the nearest relative of the patient), a patient admitted to hospital in pursuance of an application for admission for observation may be detained for a period not exceeding twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which he is admitted, but shall not be detained thereafter unless, before the expiration of that period, he has become liable to be detained by virtue of a subsequent application, order or direction under any of the following provisions of this Act.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) expressed concern at one possible consequence of the time-limit of twenty-eight days in observation cases, with which the Clause is concerned. He drew attention to the break in treatment which might arise if the patient has to be discharged after twenty-eight days, as he does under this procedure, without the possibility of an immediate effective application for treatment under the next Clause, because the nearest relative objects.
The position is a little complicated. I defined it in this way in Committee:
The limit for detention for observation is twenty-eight days unless, in the meanwhile, there has been a readmission for treatment on application made either under Clause 26 in what we might call ordinary circumstances or under Clause 29 in circumstances of urgent necessity, that is to say, under the emergency Clause. Whereas an application under Clause 26 does require consultation with the nearest relative and his consent, the emergency application under Clause 29 (1) does not … Therefore, the present position is this. If an application is made for the transfer of functions under Clause 52. and if the application is still sub judice at the end of twenty-eight days' period, then the patient cannot be further detained for observation against the wishes of his nearest relative unless it is a case of urgent necessity …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 26th February, 1959: c. 241.]
I go on to say that it is open to him to remain informally.
The position is changed somewhat by the Amendment in Clause 29, page 17, line 7, to leave out from beginning to "in" in line 8 and insert:
admission for observation may be made in respect of a patient
which will limit emergency applications to cases of observation if the House accepts that Amendment. That fact, plus the fact that Clause 30 excludes the possibility of one period of detention for observation being followed by another, makes it necessary to meet the situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has in mind by allowing a period of observation to extend beyond twenty-eight days when an application to over-rule an objecting nearest relative has already been lodged with the county court. This effect has been achieved by this Amendment, together with the Amendments which we seek to make in Clause 52.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(ADMISSION FOR TREATMENT.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 30 to 42 and to insert:
A patient may be admitted to a hospital, and there detained for the period allowed by the following provisions of this Act, in pursuance of an application (in this Act referred to as an application for admission for trea-


ment) made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) An application for admission for treatment may be made in respect of a patient on the grounds—
(a) that he is suffering from mental disorder, being—

(i) in the case of a patient of any age, mental illness or severe subnormality;
(ii) in the case of a patient under the age of twenty-one years, psychopathic disorder or subnormality,

and that the said disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for medical treatment under this section; and.
This is broadly, mutatis mutandis, similar to the Amendments which we have been discussing on Clause 25. Subsection (1) of the Clause as it stands describes the grounds on which an application for treatment may be made. Paragraph (a) specifies the class of patient to whom the Clause applies, and paragraph (b) specifies the other conditions which must be satisfied.
The Amendment has the effect that it replaces the existing subsection (1) by two new subsections. These new subsections repeat the substance of the existing subsection, with certain alterations of drafting comparable to those made in Clause 25 by the Amendment with which we have just been dealing. Just as with Clause 25, it has been thought desirable to open the Clause with a statement that patients may be admitted and detained in the circumstances specified. That is for presentational reasons and becomes subsection (1), and the grounds for the application are set out in the new subsection (2). Secondly,
…warrants the detention of the patient…
is substituted for
…renders him suitable to be detained …
for the same reasons as before. There are also further minor drafting improvements but I do not think that I need worry the House by particularising them in detail.

Mr. K. Robinson: We on this side of the House welcome the changes in this Clause as we welcomed those in Clause 25. We are quite sure that the result is a very considerable improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO APPLICATIONS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 15, line 31, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this section
This Amendment goes with those in lines 33, 42 and 43.
These are drafting Amendments, and they do not affect the basic requirements of the Clause. What they do is, first, to rearrange the provisions in more logical order, and, secondly, to clarify the procedure of consultation by the mental welfare officer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 33. leave out from "officer" to "shall" in line 41 and insert "and every such application".

In line 42, after "hospital", insert "to which admission is sought".

In line 43 leave out from first "application" to end of line 47 and insert:
(2) An application for admission for treatment shall not be made by a mental welfare officer if the nearest relative of the patient has notified that officer, or the local health authority by whom that officer is appointed, that he objects to the application being made; and before making such an application it shall be the duty of the mental welfare officer to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform the person (if any) appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient of the proposed application and of his right to object thereto.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 29.—(APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to "in" in line 8 and to insert:
admission for observation may be made in respect of a patient".
This Amendment falls to be considered with no fewer than nine other Amendments, eight of which are to this Clause and one of which is to Clause 48, page 32, line 31.
The object of all these Amendments is to confine the emergency procedure to an application for admission for observation. We had a long discussion on this point in Committee, when I indicated that I was sympathetic to this matter and


would like to make this change, but I saw two difficulties. I said then:
I hope we can leave it on this basis, namely, that we will seek in a slightly more leisurely atmosphere to resolve these difficulties and to bring forward something satisfactory on Report.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th March, 1959; c. 356.]
I think that I have now succeeded.
I will indicate to the House the nature of the difficulties which I saw at that time. They are really two. One was in the nature of a major difficulty and one in the nature of a minor difficulty. The major difficulty was that there might be cases which ought to be dealt with urgently under the emergency procedure but in which there was no need for observation because the nature of the illness and the need for treatment might be already clear. That was the major difficulty.
The second difficulty was that, at the end of twenty-eight days' observation under Clause 25, further treatment might be urgently necessary, but Clause 26 procedure might be ineffective because of objection from the nearest relative. I have already referred to the effect of Clause 30. Clause 30 (1, b), in fact, precludes a second application for observation being made during an existing period of detention under Clause 25. Therefore, the patient would have to be discharged unless an emergency application for treatment could be made under Clause 29. These two difficulties, I am happy to say, have now been met by the Amendments which we are asking to be made to the Bill.
The second objection in regard to Clause 30, and the objection of the nearest relative to which I have referred, is met by the Amendment to Clause 25 (3), page 14. line 20, which the House has now agreed, and which provides for the extension of the first period of observation if an application is before a county court.
The major difficulty which I had in mind is largely met by the new subsection (2) of Clause 25, with which we have been dealing and which redefines the first condition for admission for observation. Even in a case where it is clear what treatment will be needed, because the patient comes as an outpatient who is known, or a former in-patient, observation will generally be needed to determine whether the twenty-eight days' compul-

sory detention is likely to be enough. This revised wording of Clause 25 will enable a patient to be admitted with the primary object of giving the short-term treatment that is needed. The same will apply to emergency applications for observation under Clause 29.
The other Amendments to Clause 29 which go with this one in the long list which I gave are all drafting Amendments. Those in lines 15 and 16 are consequential on the limitation of the Clause to observation and those in lines 12, 18, 28 and 34 preserve the substance of the Amendment made in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) and Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) to insert "one of" at the beginning of subsection (3), but we have revised and improved the drafting.
The Amendments in line 9 and 35 to 39 are simply drafting and the Amendment to Clause 48, page 32, line 31 is consequential on the limitation of emergency applications for treatment by the present Amendment. Recalling the sentiments in Committee on this subject, I can commend with confidence the substance of the Amendment to the House.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We welcome this series of Amendments almost as much as, if not more than, any on the Amendment Paper. We recognise that here there has been a considerable change of view following the lengthy discussions during the Committee stage. These Amendments can have a considerable effect in encouraging a much better attitude towards the new approach in the Bill, perhaps more than anything else we could have done.
There will be agreement on both sides of the House that it is in connection with the emergency procedure that most anxieties and fears in relation to individual liberty have arisen, and this is natural. It was because we felt this that we spent much time, obviously effectively, in stressing this point during the Committee stage and in insisting that if we could achieve a limitation of the emergency procedure to observation, including treatment where required, we would do a great deal to relieve anxieties and to improve the public atmosphere towards the Bill.
I take this opportunity of emphasising what is common ground, that our hope of operating the Bill, and the new procedure under it, depends largely upon being able to convince the public of its good sense and in getting their support for this new approach. Therefore, we congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and all those who must have done much work in preparing this series of complicated Amendments in order to achieve our major objective during the Committee stage. It may be that others will have detailed points on which they want elucidation, and we shall all have to see how this works out in practice, but we are pleased that the changes have been made.

Dr. D. Johnson: I cannot do better than reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). As one of the proposers of Amendments in Committee which led to the discussions and which have had this present happy result, I welcome this series of Amendments proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Gentleman said quite rightly that this point of observation affects the entire outlook of the Bill, because there was a genuine fear on the part of those of us who raised this matter that in its original form, under which emergency procedure could be translated immediately into treatment procedure with indefinite detention, the entire alternative procedure of short-term observation would be sidetracked and the object of the Bill would be defeated.
Our minds are now set at rest by this series of Amendments and we thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the attention he paid to what we said. We discussed the matter thoroughly in Committee, but one thing is worth repeating at this stage. It is, the view of the experts on the subject, to the effect that, given the months of observation and detention which will be needed for disturbed people to settle down in hospital conditions and receive the necessary treatment, there will only be a very small percentage of cases—the estimate is 5 per cent.—of those originally detained who will have to remain in detention for longer periods. Either it will be possible to discharge them or they will stay as voluntary patients. That fact will affect the outlook and procedure in our mental hospitals. Therefore, I again thank my

right hon. and learned Friend for the encouragement he has given through these Amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, line 9 at end insert:
and any application so made is in this Act referred to as an emergency application".

In line 12, leave out "first medical recommendation" and insert "medical recommendation first".

In line 15, leave out "this Part" and insert "section twenty-five".

In line 16, after "Act", insert:
relating to applications for admission for observation".
In line 18, leave out from beginning to "given" in line 21 and insert:
An emergency application shall be sufficient in the first instance if founded on one of the medical recommendations required by section twenty-five of this Act".

In line 28, leave out from "required" to "is" in line 29 and insert "as aforesaid".

In line 34, at end insert "of the second recommendation".

Leave out lines 35 to 39 and insert:
In relation to an emergency application, section twenty-seven of this Act shall have effect as if in subsection (3) of that section".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 33.—(APPLICATION FOR GUARDIANSHIP.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 20, line 14 to leave out from the beginning to "is" in line 17 and to insert:
A patient may be received into guardianship. for the period allowed by the following provisions of this Act, in pursuance of an application (in this Act referred to as a guardianship application) made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) A guardianship application may be made in respect of a patient on the grounds—
(a) that he".
This, and the next two Amendments to lines 19 and 25, are drafting. The three Amendments together revise the wording of the Clause to correspond with the revised wording of Clauses 25 and 26 achieved by the Amendments respectively to page 14, lines 4 and 30.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 19, leave out "any case" and insert:
the case of a patient of any age".

In line 25, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 26, and insert:
warrants the reception of the patient into guardianship under this section".

In page 21, line 11, after "hospital", insert "to which admission is sought". —[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 36.—(CORRESPONDENCE OF PATIENTS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 22, line 38, after "or", to insert:
is defamatory of other persons (other than persons on the staff of the hospital) or would be likely to prejudice the interests 0f the patient, or if".
Subsection (2) of the Clause deals with the grounds on which the outgoing mail of detained patients may be withheld by the responsible medical officer. The effect of the Amendment is to enable the responsible medical officer to withhold letters and so on addressed by patients and in his opinion defamatory to other people, excluding the staff of the hospital, and likely to prejudice the patient's own interests.
The Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) in Committee. The Amendment differs from the one she moved in Committee only in drafting—she having withdrawn hers on my undertaking to consider the matter and to consider the most appropriate form of words. I have used the word "defamatory" rather than "libellous" and the expression
likely to prejudice the interests of the patient
instead of
detrimental to the patient
which the right hon. Lady's Amendment contained. The reason for the exclusion of the staff of the hospital is to avoid any suggestion of patients' complaints about their hospital treatment being stifled by the suggestion that they were in any way defamatory.

6.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I am very glad that the Minister has amended the Bill in this way. While on previous Amendments I have emphasised the importance of safeguarding the patient, at the same time I realise that it is very important to afford the maximum protection to innocent people outside the hospital who might

receive these letters. I think that the Amendment meets the case.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM HOSPITAL.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 4, leave out "impose the condition" and insert "direct".

In line 6, leave out "granted subject to that condition" and insert "so granted".

In line 10, leave out from "where" to "under" in line 11 and insert:
a patient is absent from a hospital in pursuance of leave of absence granted.

In line 13, leave out "patient" and insert patient's health or safety".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 25, line 20, to leave out from "after" to the end of line 38 and to insert:
he has ceased to be liable to be detained under this Part of this Act; and without prejudice to any other provision of this Part of this Act any such patient shall cease to be so liable at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the first day of his absence on leave unless either—

(a) he has returned to the hospital, or has been transferred to another hospital under the following provisions of this Act, before the expiration of that period; or
(b) he is absent without leave at the expiration of that period."


This Amendment rewords the existing provisions in a shorter form which has been facilitated by the definition of "absent without leave" contained in an Amendment to page 26, line 34.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Even though this is a rewording of the Clause we should not leave this Amendment without making a brief comment on the fact that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to alter the period of what used to be called "licence", a matter which we discussed in Committee. In Committee there was some discussion about whether the period of six months ought not to be twelve months, and different views were expressed.
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that he would consider the matter, although he gave no kind of undertaking about it. Some of us are still a little anxious about whether the effect of this six months' period will be that hospitals will recall patients just before the six months are up, which they


would not have done had a longer period of licence been possible.
We realise that it is not easy to establish what is desirable here and we clearly recognise that there are dangers as well as advantages from having a longer period. However, we should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say more about this matter and assure us that our anxieties about the possible action of hospitals have no foundation. It will help if we can be assured that the matter will be at least considered in the natural course of administration.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman has recalled, we discussed this at some length in Committee and we canvassed the respective arguments for six months or twelve months. I hinged my argument mainly on the relationship between, as it were, hospital responsibility and local health responsibility in this context, in that after-care is generically a local health responsibility stemming from Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. I felt that that was really a decisive factor in this and that it would not be right to extend the period to 12 months, although, of course, there are arguments for it.
I will continue to think about it, but that was my view then and it is my view today, and I do not apprehend that any disadvantage will ensue from sticking to this period. But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, from the administration point of view this is a point that can be carefully watched.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There is one further point on that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly points out that the question hinged on the availability of local authority services and the guardianship provision. I raised the point whether he was satisfied that there would be a sufficiently rapid increase in the provision to meet this requirement. Can we take it that the Minister hopes to secure a fairly rapid build-up of the local health authority services?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We are active in this regard, and these matters which we were previously discussing in the context of the Younghusband Report should be helpful to us in this regard. I am far from pessimistic about the progress which we can make in this matter.

Mr. K. Robinson: During the Committee stage the Minister made the point about transferring to guardianship. He said that the fears expressed by some of us that patients at the end of six months would be returned to hospital were exaggerated because, in fact, they could be transferred to guardianship. Why have the words
transferred to another hospital or into guardianship,
which were in line 30 of this Clause, disappeared from the Amendment which has been put down in substitution of that? I hope that the Minister is not in any way retreating from the assurance which he gave in Committee, which allayed our anxieties, and that it is still possible that this procedure will operate with the transfer of a patient into guardianship.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's point on that. He says that the words "to another hospital" have gone.

Mr. Robinson: The words "or into guardianship" have gone.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not certain of the reason for the difference in the new draft. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the purport of that at this moment. If it is something which has been inadvertently and mistakenly done I will be able to put it right in another place. I think it is all right as it stands because it is only a drafting Amendment, but I will have another look at it from that point of view. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a better reply at the moment.

Amendment agreed to.

lause 40.—(RETURN AND RE-ADMISSION OF PATIENTS ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE.)

Amendments made: In page 26, line 5, leave out from "may" to "this" and insert:
subject to the provisions of".

In line 13, leave out from "may" to "this" in line 14, and insert:
subject to the provisions of".

In line 18, leave out from "patient" to first "the" in line 19 and insert:
shall not be taken into custody under this section after the expiration of".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 26, line 34, at the end to insert:
(4) In this Act "absent without leave" means absent from any hospital or other place and liable to be taken into custody and returned under this section, and kindred expressions shall he construed accordingly.
This is a drafting Amendment which adds a new subsection defining the term "absent without leave" as covering the circumstances set out in detail in the earlier provisions of the Clause. The effect is to enable the term to be used in other Clauses of the Bill instead of longer descriptions of patients to whom these circumstances apply. In that way it has been possible to improve the drafting in many parts of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41.—(REGULATIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF PATIENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 6, after "admission", to insert:
for observation or for treatment."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.)

Clause 43.—(DURATION OF AUTHORITY.)

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move in page 29, to leave out lines 12 to 14.
This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in page 29, line 15, leave out "three" and insert "two".
There was considerable discussion during the Committee stage about the frequency with which compulsory patients could have access to the mental health review tribunals. Two Amendments which I moved were taken together, and I think that that unfortunately led to some confusion. The effects of the Amendments were, first, to eliminate the limit of twenty-eight days after a period of detention had been renewed during which an application to a tribunal had to be made; and, secondly, to give a patient an annual right of access to the tribunal.
During the discussion in Committee the Minister put forward some objections to having an annual right of review, but he said:
So I will content myself, if that is the right expression, with accepting the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, if he will leave it to me to get it into order on the Report stage of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 12th March, 1959; c. 453.)

With some surprise and some pleasure, I withdrew my Amendments. To do him justice, the Minister very soon saw that there had been a misunderstanding and he wrote me a letter saying that what he had intended to do was to accept the first of my Amendments, which eliminated the twenty-eight days' proviso, but that he could not accept the second Amendment which gave an annual right of access to the mental health review tribunal. I quite understand that his remarks were made in good faith, as was my acceptance of them, but this is one of those misunderstandings which occur from time to time.
7.0 p.m.
I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled an Amendment which eliminates the period of twenty-eight days. By these two Amendments we are seeking to go not quite so far as I wished to go during the Committee stage. Although I do not altogether accept the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that any of us wish to run the risk of overloading these tribunals. They are to be an extremely important safeguard for the compulsory patient in future, and must be in a position to do their job properly, with plenty of time for full consideration of the cases. I doubt whether even an annual right of access would so overload them, but we have tried to go half-way to meet the Minister in these Amendments.
The frequency of the right of access to the tribunal depends on the periods for which detention is renewable. The first period is for twelve months, and then for two years and after that for periods of three years at a time. The patient can have access to the tribunal once in each of these periods.
In effect these Amendments eliminate the three-year period and make the detention periods renewable after one year and then after two years and so on for periods of two years at a time. The effect is that no compulsory patient detained under the provisions of this Bill would have access to a mental health tribunal less frequently than once in two years. I am sure that this modification of our previous Amendment will not overload the tribunals. I do not think that any administrative difficulty will result from having two-yearly instead of three-yearly renewal for the residue of chronic


patients, and in those circumstances I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to second the Amendment.
This point was argued at considerable length in Committee. I hope that the Minister will feel able to concede what is after all a relatively modest request, which represents a compromise between his position during the Committee stage and that adopted by hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has said, I was unable to accept the suggestion made during the Committee stage discussions that we should have an annual period, for the reasons which I gave on that occasion. But this represents a compromise, and I think a valuable compromise, which will improve our procedures and be a reinforcement of the safeguards for the liberty of the subject. Therefore, I have much pleasure in recommending the House to adopt the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 29, line 15, leave out "three" and insert "two".—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 29, line 44, to leave out from "period" to the end of line 46 and to insert:
for which the authority for his detention of guardianship is renewed by virtue of the report
This Clause provides for the renewal of authority for detention or guardianship at stated intervals with a right of application to the mental health review tribunal by the patient at each renewal. As the Clause stands, the patient has to apply within twenty-eight days from the date at which the authority would have expired had it not been renewed. By this Amendment we dispense with the twenty-eight day limit and a patient will be able to apply to the tribunal at any time within the period for which the authority for his detention or guardianship is renewed. It implements the undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage discussions when we debated an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mr. K. Robinson: This Amendment and the two Amendments just accepted by the Minister mark a considerable extension of the safeguards for the liberty of the subject. As he says, this Amendment is in line with the undertaking given in Committee, and we are grateful to the Minister.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It will be open to a patient to appeal at any time during the second, third or fourth period and so on, but there is still a limit on the first period. We have dealt with the part of the Bill relating to that, but I am not certain that the two things will tally with one another. I do not expect my right hon. and learned Friend to give an answer now, but perhaps he will consider the matter and decide whether it will be necessary to make an Amendment at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PATIENTS ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 30, line 31, to leave out Subsections (1) and (2) and to insert:
(1) If on the day on which, apart from this section, a patient would cease to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship under this Part of this Act, or within the period of one week ending with that day, the patient is absent without leave, he shall not cease to be so liable or subject—

(a) in any case, until the expiration of the period during which he can be taken into custody under section forty of this Act, or the day on which he is returned or returns himself to the hospital or place where he ought to be, whichever is the earlier; and
(b) if he is returned or returns himself as aforesaid within the period first mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, until the expiration of the period of one week beginning with the day on which he is returned or returns as aforesaid.

(2) Where the period for which a patient is liable to be detained or subject to guardianship is extended by virtue of this section, any examination and report to be made and furnished under subsection (3) of section forty-three of this Act may be made and furnished within that period as so extended.
This is a drafting Amendment. It substitutes two new subsections for the present subsections (1) and (2). There is no alteration of substance. It has been possible to simplify and improve the wording in several respects by the introduction of the definition of "absent without leave" on page 26, line 34.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48.—(RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE BY NEAREST RELATIVE.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 31, leave out subsection (1).—(Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 49.—(DEFINITION OF RELATIVE AND NEAREST RELATIVE.)

Mr. R. Thompson: I beg to move, in page 33, line 30, to leave out from "relative" to the end of line 49, and to insert:
means any of the following, that is to say—

(a) husband or wife;
(b) son or daughter;
(c) father;
(d) mother;
(e) brother or sister;
(f) grand-parent;
(g) grandchild;
(h) uncle or aunt;
(i) nephew or niece.


(2) In deducing relationships for the purposes of this section, an adopted person shall be treated as the child of the person or persons by whom he was adopted and not as the child of any other person; and subject as aforesaid any relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood, and an illegitimate person shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother.
(3) In this Part of this Act, subject to the provisions of this section and to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the "nearest relative" means the person first described in subsection (1) of this section who is for the time being surviving, relatives of the whole blood being preferred to relatives of the same description of the half-blood and the elder or eldest of two or more relatives described in any paragraph of that subsection being preferred to the other or others of those relatives, regardless of sex.
It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discuss the Government Amendments in this Clause and in Clauses 53 and 55.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That may be done with the approval of the House.

Mr. Thompson: These Amendments constitute a combined effort to meet points raised during the Committee stage discussions regarding the definition of nearest relative and the circumstances in which the functions of the nearest relative can be transferred to some other person. The combined effect of the whole series is, first, to ensure that illegitimate children are regarded for this purpose as related not only to their mother but also to other

members of their mother's family. That arises on the first of these Amendments.
Secondly, the effect is to exclude husband or wife in cases of separation or desertion. That meets a point which was raised by more than one hon. Member in Committee. Thirdly, the effect is to include persons who have been living as man and wife for at least six months, though not married. That meets the unmarried-spouse point which also had a good deal of discussion in Committee. Fourthly, the Amendments widen the ground on which application may be made to the county court for the appointment of some other person to act as nearest relative, and to include the ground, first of all, that the nearest relative is incapable of acting by reason of mental disorder or other illness, or secondly, that there is no nearest relative as defined in the Amendment in page 36, line 1. Next, they will allow an application to be made to the county court by any person with whom the patient resides, whether or not this person is a relative. It was pointed out in Committee that sometimes the person most fitted to carry out this function would not be a relative but somebody who had been giving shelter or protection to the patient.
Further, they will allow application to the county court to be made at any time, whether or not the patient is already detained in hospital. Application could therefore be made to displace the relative who would otherwise succeed on the death of a good nearest relative—I use the word "good" in the sense of meaning one who has the interests of the patient sincerely at heart —if there is ground for thinking that he is likely to act unreasonably. All these Amendments taken together, meet, I think, practically all the objections and criticisms that were raised in Committee.
On the question of enabling the powers of the nearest relative to be exercised by the person nearest in affection rather than close in kinship, the Amendments proposed in page 35, line 40, and page 36, line 1, will facilitate this, when there is no next of kin or when the next of kin is acting unreasonably or is willing to abdicate.
The points I have put will indicate to the House that we have taken very seriously the discussions we had in Committee and have tried to incorporate by


means of this series of Amendments the particular matters which seemed at that time to cause most concern to hon. Members.

7.15 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: This is a most remarkable occasion. The Minister has accepted suggestion's made from this side of the House which, I suppose, are unprecedented in this field. He has done quite rightly, but he knows as well as I do that criticisms may come from all kinds of people. He and I are prepared to defend our attitude, but the moralists who regard these matters only from the moral standpoint will find it extremely difficult to understand why there has been embodied in an Act of Parliament powers for an individual to exercise the functions of nearest relative in respect of an individual with whom he has been living, although there is no marriage tie.
I feel that I know more about life than does the Minister in this respect. [Laughter.] I know that sounds rather bad, but I speak as a doctor. When the time comes to find what the inter-relationship is between a patient and somebody in the house who had hitherto acted in a position of husband or wife, one has sometimes discovered that that has not been the position at all. I would therefore not put six months in as the period but would make it one year. The present proposal is a little too lenient. I said in Committee that if we are to do these things we should allow a man and woman living with each other to have a trial run for a little longer than six months before they were given this function. I would therefore put it at a year. After a year, love sometimes flies out of the window. After six months, there might still be the honeymoon stage.
Something should be done about this. Criticism will be forthcoming. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) mentioned National Insurance. I learned a lot about this matter when I was at the Ministry of National Insurance, and a lot more when I was at the Ministry of Food, where we discovered that a large number of rations were not being taken out as we expected. They were not being taken out by women who had been living with a man not for a year or two but perhaps for twenty years and had had half a dozen children by him.
I stand with the Minister on this matter. Those who criticise must realise that all around are couples who, to all appearances, are properly married but who nevertheless cannot produce a marriage certificate. It would be absolutely wrong, in the event of one of them suffering from some mental disorder, to deprive the partner of all powers. Therefore, what we are doing in these Amendments is absolutely realist. We are saying that we must look for the individual in the patient's life who can exercise the greatest sympathy, kindness and understanding. We have only to read our newspapers to realise that that person may not always be the legitimate husband or wife.
On the question of the illegitimate child, I again congratulate the Minister. It is clear that the illegitimate child should be regarded as the nearest relative in these cases. In the case of a single girl who is pregnant, her father and mother are the nearest relatives, but they may have turned her out of the house. When years have passed and her child is living with her, that woman may develop a mental disorder and, as the law stands, the nearest relatives would be the man and woman who had been utterly cruel to the girl when her need was greatest. The child who lives with her, is fond of her and has shown her affection, would have no power in the decision as to what was to happen to its mother.
I must congratulate the Minister upon accepting the suggestion and embodying it in these Amendments. I am sure that those who may be a little critical on moral grounds will realise, if they consider the particular circumstances of a patient suffering from mental disorder, that the Amendments are humane, and wise.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I also would like warmly to welcome these Amendments. I doubt whether ever in the history of the House of Commons so many points in so many directions have been met at the same time as in this series of Amendments. Perhaps I may be allowed to claim some measure of paternity because I raised some of these points on the Second Reading.
The principle involved is not quite so original as the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has suggested. Those of us who had experience of administering pay and allowances


during the war learned something of exactly these sort of problems. The right hon. Lady will remember the discussions which took place over the "unmarried wives" and that type of case. When one had direct experience of this, as I had during the war, one saw what a very large range of really important questions were raised by these rather obscure relationships which arise. I am certain they are even more prone to arise in this class of case than in any other class of cases we could consider together.
For that reason, I most warmly welcome these Amendments. I am sure they will be extremely helpful, not only from the point of view of pleasing those directly affected, but from the point of view of doing something, which is the very purpose of the Bill, for bringing about an earlier cure of those affected.

Mr. R. Thompson: Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word or two in reply to the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I must confess that it is unusual for me to find myself in the situation of being almost reproached by the right hon. Lady for proceeding too rapidly. Usually it is the other way round. However, I make no complaint about that and I shall be happy to have her support when these matters—as they may—arouse some controversy. The right hon. Lady made some point about the six-month period in the unmarried spouse case. There is a precedent for that. I am thinking of the arrangements made during the war whereby a special dependant's allowance was paid to a woman who had been living with a soldier for at least six months before he joined the Colours. That precedent probably explains why we have chosen this period.
At this point I think I ought to make clear, before we say goodbye to this matter, that the Amendment provides that if the patient also has a legal spouse the unmarried spouse does not qualify to act as the nearest relative unless the legal spouse is excluded by paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the Clause as amended by the Amendment in page 34, line 2 which we have just discussed and which deals with separation and desertion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 34, line 2, at end insert:
(a) is not ordinarily resident within the United Kingdom; or
(b) being the husband or wife of the patient, is permanently separated from the patient, either by agreement or under an order of a court, or has deserted or has been deserted by the patient for a period which, has not come to an end; or—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

In line 16 leave out from "enactment" to first "of" in line 17.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

In line 18, at end insert:
(5) In this section "husband" and "wife" include a person who is living with the patient as the patient's husband or wife, as the case may be (or, if the patient is for the time being an in-patient in a hospital, was so living until the patient was admitted), and has been or had been so living for a period of not less than six months but a person shall not be treated by virtue of this section as the nearest relative of a married patient unless the husband or wife of the patient is disregarded by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section. —[Mr. walker-Smith.]

Clause 52.—(TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF NEAREST RELATIVE.)

Amendments made: In page 35, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) The county court may, upon application made in accordance with the provisions of this section in respect of a patient, by order direct that the functions under this Part of this Act of the nearest relative of the patient shall, during the continuance in force of the order, be exercisable by the applicant, or by any other person specified in the application being a person who, in the opinion of the court is a proper person to act as the patient's nearest relative and is willing to do so

In line 40, leave out from first "of" to "in" in line 41 and insert:


(a) any relative of the patient;
(b) any other person with whom the patient is residing (or, if the patient is then an in-patient in a hospital, was last residing before he was admitted); or
(c) a mental welfare officer, but.

In page 36, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) An application for an order under this section may be made upon any of the following grounds, that is to say—

(a) that the patient has no nearest relative within the meaning of this Act, or that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain whether he has such a relative, or who that relative is;
(b) that the nearest relative of the patient is incapable of acting as such by reason of mental disorder or other illness;


(c) that the nearest relative of the patient unreasonably objects to the making of an application for admission for treatment or a guardianship application in respect of the patient; or
(d) that the nearest relative of the patient has otherwise acted without due regard to the welfare of the patient in respect of the exercise of any of his functions under this Part of this Act, or is likely to do so.


(4) If immediately before the expiration of the period for which a patient is liable to be detained by virtue of an application for admission for observation, an application under this section, being an application made on the ground specified in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of the last foregoing subsection, is pending in respect of the patient, that period shall be extended—

(a) in any case, until the application under this section has been finally disposed of; and
(b) if an order is made in pursuance of the application under this section, for a further period of seven days;

and for the purposes of this subsection an application under this section shall be deemed to have been finally disposed of at the expiration of the time allowed for appealing from the decision of the court or, if notice of appeal has been given within that time, when the appeal has been heard or withdrawn, and "pending" shall be construed accordingly.

In line 17 leave out from "person" to "nearest" in line 19 and insert:
who was the patient's nearest relative when the order was made is no longer his".

In line 20 leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert:
Where an order is made under this section in respect of a patient who is or subsequently becomes liable to be detained or subject to guardianship under this Part of this Act, the nearest relative of the patient".

In line 26 at end insert:
during which the order continues in force".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 53.—(DISCHARGE, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF ORDERS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 36, line 27, to leave out from the beginning to "a" in line 36 and to insert:
An order made under section fifty-two of this Act in respect of a patient may be discharged by the county court upon application made—

(a) in any case, by the person having the functions of the nearest relative of the patient by virtue of the order;
(b) where the order was made on the ground specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the said section fifty-two, or where the person who was the nearest relative of the patient when the order was made has ceased to be his nearest relative,

on the application of the nearest relative of the patient.


(2) An order made under the said section fifty-two in respect of a patient may be varied by the county court, on the application of the person having the functions of the nearest relative by virtue of the order or on the application of a mental welfare officer, by substituting for the first-mentioned person".
Clause 53 is concerned with the position which arises after the county court has made a transfer of functions order under Clause 52. In Clause 53 as we have it in the Bill paragraph (a) of subsection (1) allows a person succeeding to the position of nearest relative to apply for the discharge of a transfer order and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) allows the statutory nearest relative—if I may so term him, the person Who becomes the nearest relative by virtue of the order—and the mental welfare officer to apply for a variation of the order.
This Amendment I am commending to the House redrafts most of the present subsection and introduces some points of substance as follows: Paragraph (a) allows the person exercising the functions of the nearest relative to apply for the discharge of the order as well as its variation. The effect of the discharge is to reinstate the relative who has been displaced. Paragraph (b) allows the displaced relative to apply for the discharge of the order if the order was made on either of the grounds (a) or (b) in the Amendment to page 36, line 1, to which we have just agreed—that is, if the patient has no nearest relative within the meaning of the Act, or it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain whether he has. The second ground is where he is incapable of acting as nearest relative by reason of mental disorder or other illness. The effect of the new paragraph (b). therefore, is to allow a relative whose existence was unknown when the order was made, or who was incapacitated by illness, to establish his position as nearest relative.
It does not, of course, extend that to cases under paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Amendment to page 36, line 1, because it is obviously not appropriate for relatives discharged on those grounds, that is to say, the unreasonably objecting ground, and the ground of acting without due regard to the welfare of the patient. They are not allowed to go back to the county court. If they were, they would be going to the county court, in effect, with an


application for the patient's discharge from hospital. That is a matter the jurisdiction of which is vested in the mental health review tribunal to which the displaced relative, albeit displaced, can make his application once a year.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in line 40 to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 4 on page 37 and to insert:
(3) If the person having the functions of the nearest relative of a patient by virtue of an order under the said section fifty-two dies, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as if for any reference to that person there were substituted a reference to any relative of the patient, and until the order is discharged or varied under those provisions the functions of the nearest relative under this Part of this Act shall not he exercisable by any person.
This is drafting. it simply improves the wording of subsection (2) of the Clause, but makes no alteration in its substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 18, at end insert:
(4) The discharge or variation under this section of an order made under the said section fifty-two shall not affect the validity of anything previously done in pursuance of the order.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 54.—(PROCEDURE ON APPLICATIONS TO COUNTY COURT.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 37, line 25, to leave out from "admission" to "notwithstanding" in line 26 and insert:
on the hearing of such applications of evidence of such descriptions as may be specified in the rules".
This is a drafting Amendment to meet a point raised in Committee. The Clause enables provisions to be made in county court rules for the procedure to be followed on applications to the court under the two Clauses we have just dealt with —Clauses 52 and 53. In paragraph (b), the rules can provide for a relaxation of the rules of evidence in relation to any evidence given on such applications.
We discussed this matter in Committee, and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) suggested that the paragraph was too widely drawn and than the relaxation of the rules should be confined to those reports which I mentioned as the ones I had in mind; that

is to say, reports of medical officers, social workers, mental welfare officers and so on. There was no difference in the Committee over the view that these reports ought not to be subjected to the full rigidity of the rules of evidence. I undertook, at column 474 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
These rules will be rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor for the application of county court judges. That being so, it is not either necessary or practicable, and would not be usual, to describe in detail in the Statute the kind of report to which the relaxation would apply. The Amendment tightens up the paragraph by referring, instead of the very broad reference which we had before, to—
evidence of such descriptions as may be specified in the rules
instead of to "any evidence." I think that will in substance meet the hon. Gentleman's point, without leading me into the indelicacy of spelling out this matter in too much detail for the use of the judiciary.

Mr. K. Robinson: I think this wording meets the objections which I expressed in Committee to the rather broad wording of the original paragraph (b). I can quite understand that it would not be appropriate to spell out things which ought themselves to be spelled out in the rules as they are drafted, but 1 am quite sure equally that the views which have been expressed, both from this side of the House and in the Committee and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman both in Committee and today, will be taken into account when these county court rules are drafted, and that they will specify the very limited field in which it will he possible to side-step the normal laws of evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55.—(REGULATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART IV.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 38, line 7, at the end to insert:
and
(e) for enabling the functions under this Part of this Act of the nearest relative of a patient to be performed, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions (if any) as may be prescribed by the regulations, by any person authorised in that behalf by that relative".


This is one of the "nearest relative" series of Amendments. It gives the Minister power to make regulations to allow the patient's nearest relative, as defined in the amended Clause 49, as it were, to abdicate in favour of some other person. We had some discussion on this in the Standing Committee. The effect of this Amendment would be to allow the appointment of a person nearer in affection to the patient in those cases, which are certainly by no means impossible, where the relative who is nearest in consanguinity, though not in point of affection, is willing for the change to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO WARDS OF COURT.)

Amendment made: In page 38, line 30, to leave out from "and" to end of line 33 and insert:
subsection (2) of section twenty-seven of this Act shall not apply in relation to an application so made".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 58.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART IV.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 39, line 11, to leave out "State institution" and to insert "special hospital".
This Amendment is linked with a large number of other Amendments, and the object of all these Amendments is to change the title of the institutions provided under Clause 96 of the Bill for people who—
require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities",
from "State Institutions" to "special hospitals". I think the House will welcome this change. I have made it clear on a good many occasions, and I said several times in the Committee, that these places are hospitals. That, indeed, is why they are vested in the Minister of Health and come within the definition of hospital in the interpretation Clause 145. It is therefore appropriate that that should be reflected in the collective title by which they are known, though in practice, no doubt, they are likely to be referred to by their individual names, such as Broad-moor Hospital, Rampton Hospital and so on. I think that on an occasion when a generic term is required it would be more appropriate that they should be

referred to as "special hospitals" rather than as "State institutions". I therefore ask the House to make this change in the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We certainly welcome this change of wording, and this is a suitable moment to make some reference to the wider point, of which this is a part. In the discussions in Committee, we had quite a lot of expresssions of view about the future status of these special hospitals, as we are now to call them. A good deal of anxiety was expressed both about the precise way in which they were to be used in the future and some anxieties about the way in which they have been used in the past, to some extent.
Strong feelings were expressed from both sides of the Committee that the opportunity should be taken for some wider inquiry into the whole position of these special hospitals, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after some vigorous exchanges in the Committee, showed that his mind was not closed to this point of having an inquiry. I understand—indeed, I know—that he has taken the opportunity since the Committee stage of writing to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) about this matter. I do not necessarily wish to take this opportunity to develop the argument at any length, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he might say something further about it later in our proceedings—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the Amendment only changes the name.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I recognise that this is a change of name, but it is pertinent to the wider point. It might be said that this is one of the matters which might well come under review for examination by the inquiry, although I agree that it would be a relatively minor point. I merely wish to establish at this moment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to say something further about the necessity for further inquiry into the position. I hope that it will be something which we can welcome as much as we have welcomed so many of his Amendments today. If he can give such an indication I shall be willing to follow it up later rather than now.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As you have pointed out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the


Amendment deals simply with nomenclature. You listened to the hon. Member with that exploratory tolerance which the Chair always so properly shows on these occasions, but it would be trespassing on your indulgence for me to ask for the same for myself. I will content myself with saying that I hope to make some reference to the subject which the hon. Member has in mind on Third Reading tomorrow, which I apprehend will be a more appropriate time than now.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59.—(POWERS OF COURTS TO ORDER HOSPITAL ADMISSION OR GUARDIANSHIP.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 40, line 32, to leave out from "that" to "into" in line 34 and to insert:
the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for medical treatment, or the reception of the patient".
This Amendment has the same effect as some other Amendments in page 50, line 39; page 52, line 9; page 55, line 2; and page 56, line 22. These are all drafting Amendments necessary for confirmation of Amendments moved by my right hon. and learned Friend to Clauses 25, 26 and 33. We substitute "warrants the detention", or where appropriate "reception" in the case of guardianship, for the words "renders him suitable". We are doing so at each of the appropriate points in Part V.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65.—(POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RESPECT OF PATIENTS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION ORDERS.)

7.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 46, line 23, at the end to insert:
(3) The Secretary of State shall require the responsible medical officer and the managers to review the case of any patient subject to an order restricting discharge twelve months after the admission of the patient to hospital and thereafter at intervals of twelve months, and to make a report to him on each occasion stating whether or not in their opinion compulsory detention of the patient is still necessary.
This is a subject which we discussed at length in Committee when we had put down a similar Amendment. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic towards it. There is a tendency to

reiterate that the machine as it functions now will look after this category of patient, who is subject to an order restricting discharge. I emphasise that here we have a category of individuals who must be regarded as social outcasts. Not only have they a mental disorder but they have committed an offence. Consider the case of the psychopath who has been given one chance after another by his family and finally has committed an offence for which not even his mother will forgive him. This category must have special attention.
In the Amendment we are asking only that a report should be made on these people every year. After all, it is easy to forget them. To some extent they antagonise the people who are looking after them. They can be extremely offensive, and whereas those who are closest to them may at the beginning of their confinement feel sympathy towards them, after a time their behaviour is such that even those closest to them feel a little antagonistic. Surely they should therefore be given a special kind of observation.
I want to know why it is impossible for this report to be made. Surely there are plenty of people who could report on them. It seems to me that any difficulty would be only a clerical difficulty, especially as the number is limited. There is not such a vast number subject to restrictions that I could be told that it is administratively impossible.
We have tried to be reasonable in the Amendment. At least the Minister should tell us that this point will be reconsidered in another place. I hope that he will tell me precisely why, from an administrative point of view, there are difficulties. I hope that he will meet the point which I have mentioned time after time that if we are to discharge our responsibilities properly we must recognise that special care and vigilance should be exercised in these cases.

Mr. Renton: We accept that the right hon. Lady is being reasonable in her motives for the Amendment. The question is whether the machinery which she suggests is necessary, bearing in mind the other provisions of the Bill and the arrangements which my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to make in order to give these people the opportunity of


having the question of their discharge reviewed.
The people concerned are of three kinds. First, there are those whom the courts have had before them and, after conviction, have made against them a hospital order with restriction on discharge; secondly, there are those whom the Secretary of State has transferred from prison with a direction restricting discharge; thirdly, there are Queen's Pleasure patients. There are technical drafting reasons why the last two categories come within the ambit of the Amendment as well as the first category to which the Clause particularly refers.
There are four separate sets of arrangements which will enable these cases to be reviewed and perhaps if I describe them the right hon. Lady will feel that it is unnecessary also to have the annual reports which her Amendment requires. First, there will be continuing responsibility on the part of the responsible medical officers. It will be their normal duty to keep constantly under review the question of the patient's fitness for discharge and to recommend discharge as soon as they think that the patient is ready for it. It is open to the patient to ask the doctor or the hospital managers for a discharge at any time.
That applies to patients subject to restriction on discharge just as much as it applies to patients under Part IV of the Act, that is ordinary patients who have not been before the courts. The only difference is that the doctor or the hospital managers must obtain the Home Secretary's consent before patients who have come through the courts or from the Secretary of State can be discharged. The first procedure is the continuing responsibility of the responsible medical officer.
Secondly, the patient, his relatives, a member of Parliament or any one else, may at any time write to the Home Secretary asking him to consider discharge. The Home Secretary will then obtain reports from the hospital and, if he thinks necessary, refer the case to the tribunal for advice before deciding whether to discharge.
Thirdly, there are to be periodical reports under administrative arrangements which I mentioned in Committee in relation to these patients and which my right hon. and learned Friend also

mentioned in relation to Part IV patients. There are to be administrative arrangements whereby my right hon. and learned Friend intends to arrange that reports, similar to those which will be made on other patients under Clause 43, should be made by the responsible doctor to the managers on those patients who are subject to restriction on discharge and the other categories which I mentioned. Those reports will be made at the same intervals as those now laid down under Clause 43 for other patients. Only within the last hour my right hon. and learned Friend accepted an Amendment, the effect of which is that such reports will be made not less frequently than every two years. It was originally three years. It is now to be two years.
Fourthly, under an Amendment which we shall next come to and which I hope that I may have leave to refer to and which perhaps the right hon. Lady has already seen the patient will be able to require the Home Secretary to refer the case to a tribunal. The Home Secretary will be able to discharge the patient, if he thinks fit, after considering the views of the hospital authorities and of the tribunal after the case has been so referred by him to the tribunal for advice.
Bearing in mind those four procedures, each of which is likely to be very helpful and a very good safeguard for patients, the question is whether we should also oblige medical officers and hospital authorities to have these annual reports. I point out that requiring them to do so would have the rather strange effect that there would be more frequent compulsory reports on patients who have come through the courts or as a result of the criminal law than on ordinary patients. I am not sure that that is a result which the right hon. Lady would wish to achieve. One has to bear in mind also that in the case of the transferred patients there is no question of the patient's liberty being at stake. It is a question of whether they shall be detained in a hospital as a result of a transfer order, with a restriction on discharge, or sent back to prison.
I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Lady will realise that, if we had these compulsory annual reports on these cases, who will for the most part be the bad cases, it will result in a great many of what we used to call in the Army nil returns or purely negative


reports. All of us, exercising our judgment, have to consider whether it is necessary to impose that administrative procedure on the very busy doctors who, in any event, have these patients under their care all the time.
We have considered this and our advice to the House is that it is better to stick to the four procedures which I have mentioned. For that reason, I am afraid that we are not able to accept the right hon. Lady's Amendment. 1 hope that with the explanation which I have given she will now feel the same way as we do. We have considered it very carefully.

Dr. Summerskill: I am very sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has adopted this attitude. I find it awfully difficult to accept his reasoning that there would he an anomaly, though I agree.

if he accepts one year, whereas on a previous Amendment he accepted two years for other patients, this would be so. He will recall that in the first place in Committee we mentioned that it should be one year for both categories of patients. Therefore, it is not our fault that this anomaly would occur. That is not any reason for withdrawing the Amendment.

The other things which the hon. and learned Gentleman said are a repetition of what we have already heard. I am afraid that he has not convinced me, and I will ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 174.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 47, line 13, at the end to insert:
and, where so requested in writing in accordance with the following provisions of this section by such a patient who is detained in hospital, shall do so within the period of two months beginning with the receipt of the request unless during that period the patient is discharged absolutely or conditionally under subsection (2) of this section or the order restricting his discharge ceases to have effect.
(7) A patient shall not be entitled to make a request to the Secretary of State under the last

foregoing subsection before the expiration of the period of one year beginning with the date of the relevant hospital order, but subject as aforesaid may make one such request during each period during which he could have made an application to a Mental Health Review Tribunal if he had been subject to a hospital order without an order restricting his discharge and the authority for his detention had been renewed at the requisite intervals.
(8) Where a patient subject to an order restricting his discharge has been conditionally discharged under subsection (2) of this section and subsequently recalled to hospital, the last


foregoing subsection shall apply as if the relevant hospital order had been made on the day on which he returns or is returned to hospital, but he may also make one such request as aforesaid between the expiration of the period of six months and the expiration of the period of one year beginning with that day ".
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee to consider the possibility of giving patients who are subject to restriction orders the right to initiate consideration of their case by the mental health tribunal, with a view to that tribunal tendering advice to the Home Secretary about discharge. It gives the patient who is detained in hospital, and subject to an order or direction restricting discharge, or who is a Queen's Pleasure patient, the right to initiate consideration of his case when a period of twelve months has elapsed since the making of the order or direction restricting the discharge.
He wi11 also be able to exercise this right once during his second year, once during the third and fourth years, and once during every successive period of two years. This corresponds with the right to apply to the tribunal which the patient would have had if the authority for his detention were subject to periodic review and was renewed at those intervals.
The procedure proposed is that the patient will ask the Home Secretary, in writing—or have it made in writing on his behalf—to refer his case to the tribunal for its advice. If the patient makes such a request and is at that time entitled to have his case referred to the tribunal the Home Secretary will be under a duty to refer it within two months, unless the patient is discharged meanwhile.
The object of having that two-month period of grace, if I may so call it, is to avoid the Home Secretary being obliged to refer to the tribunal a case in which he may propose, after seeing the latest reports, to discharge the patient either absolutely or conditionally, or agree to his discharge by the hospital authority. The two months' period may be required before a decision can be taken because it will be necessary to obtain reports from the hospital; but it will also be necessary to ascertain that if the patient is discharged he has a suitable home and job to go to. It may also be necessary—indeed, it may be a statutory obligation

—to make arrangements for the patient's after care. I think, therefore, that for all these arrangements and reports to be made, a period of two months is not unreasonable
I should draw attention to the new subsection (8), which makes special provision for a patient who, having already been conditionally discharged, is later recalled to hospital. When that happens, he will have the same right to initiate consideration of his case by a tribunal as he had when originally admitted or transferred to a hospital with an order restricting his discharge. He will also have that additional right if so recalled during the last half of his first year of recall.
If I may say so, this Amendment represents a fairly broad concession, as it refers to the three categories of case that I mentioned in our discussion on the previous Amendment. I hope, therefore, that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. K. Robinson: As the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested in his closing remarks, I readily concede that this is a considerable concession. I think that probably it is the greatest change in the Bill that has taken place since it was presented on Second Reading. We on this side of the House are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for listening so carefully and so generously to the remarks made in Committee on this matter.
At the moment, we are dealing with a separate category of patient—patients who are under hospital orders with restrictions on their discharge. They are patients whose discharge originally could be effected only by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is for that reason that we have been seeking ways and means of giving these patients—who, although they are offenders, are primarily patients and must be regarded under the Bill as patients—additional safeguards against the possibly arbitrary exercise of this individual and solitary power which the Home Secretary has. The access which they will now have to a mental health review tribunal is probably the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, although it does not quite meet some of the points which I made earlier in which I said that the decision governing discharge should be primarily a medical


one. The review tribunals are not exclusively medical, but at least they will have the benefit of much medical advice.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the decision of the tribunal will be an advisory one. It will not strictly be a decision; it will be advice tendered to the Home Secretary. However, I think that it will be very powerful advice and I do not want to press our luck too far, but I would have thought that the effect of a decision of a tribunal in one of these cases would not be substantially different from the effect of a case under the other Clauses. If a tribunal thought that discharge of a patient was appropriate, I have a shrewd idea that the discharge will follow in this case also.
We on this side warmly welcome the concession made in giving special restriction patients access to mental health review tribunal in the same way as if they were not subject to special restriction and with the same frequency available to other patients. We think that this is a substantial improvement on the Bill as originally drafted.

A tnendment agreed to.

Clause 132.—(CORRESPONDENCE OF PATIENTS NOT SUBJECT TO DETENTION.)

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 86, line 7, to leave out Clause 132.
I feel I ought to apologise to the Minister because he has been so understanding on other occasions and I have to come back to this point, but I think that this Amendment is very important. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the patient who is not subject to detention complete freedom to correspond, to ensure that the outgoing mail and the incoming mail shall not be stopped even though it might be suspected that some letter is perhaps going to a place where it might cause some trouble.
We debated this question fully in Committee and the Minister knows most of the arguments. He quite rightly accused me of being illogical because on another occasion, when we were discussing the patient who was subject to detention, a patient who is not an informal patient, I said that certain letters certainly should be withheld. The Minister accepted that argument and today we have had an Amendment meeting our wishes. The Minister listened carefully and responded, but I am afraid I must link my argument tonight to one aspect of the situation. In Committee the Minister, when dealing with the patient who was subject to detention and the informal patient, said:
In many cases they are subject to the same paranoic urges of sending out unsuitable correspondence and it is necessary that the outside public should be protected. In a word, the difference is not between the administrative procedures whereby they have come in for treatment, whether on the one hand the procedures of Part IV, or the informal procedure. It is in the mental condition itself."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee E: 16th April, 1959, c. 736.]
I am not relating my argument to that at all. In my opinion, the Minister has failed to understand the very essence of the case.
The approach to the Bill is such that we shall not be successful unless we can educate the potential patient—all of us, on both sides of the House, are potential patients—and the relatives and friends. In the past, under the old Lunacy Acts,


pressure has been brought to bear on people showing symptoms of mental disorder to enter what, in the old days, were called asylums. Our approach today is entirely different. We are anxious to persuade people that when they are conscious of the first stages of a mental disorder they should apply for treatment precisely in the same way as they might apply if they had a pain or a rash or some other symptom related to a surgical or medical condition.
In order to persuade people to go to a doctor or to a psychiatrist, we must ensure that they shall have the maximum of protection. We must assure them that, as far as possible, they will be kept in touch with those they love. I suggest to the Minister that if a patient knows that if he voluntarily submits himself to treatment there may be a chance of his letter being interfered with and that vital link with the outside world, with the things with which he is familiar and the people whom he loves, might be cut, we shall have defeated absolutely one of the most important objectives of the Bill.
If the Minister reads what he said, he will find that he has not applied himself to that question at all. I relate all my argument to that. I said to him that we must weigh the benefits with the dangers, the dangers being that an unpleasant letter or a defamatory letter may be sent to some third party. It may be that a patient himself might receive letters of an unpleasant nature. We have to weigh the danger of the harm that may be caused to him and to a third party with the benefits which may accrue both to him and indeed to the whole community if we say that in this category of patients it shall never be suggested that their communications with the outside world will be in any way interfered with. I relate all my argument to that point.
I can assure the Minister that I would not have put my name to this Amendment and drawn attention to this matter again if I had not given the matter careful thought. This is an important question, and what I am so anxious to do is to ensure that this great social reform shall be implemented as soon as possible. I am quite certain that unless we can educate people to recognise that they will be dealt with kindly and sympathetically, but that at the same time none of their freedoms will be interfered with, we shall

have failed in educating the potential patient. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think about it again and perhaps bring the matter up in another place, because I think the public benefit to the community outweighs the dangers.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This is a question which has caused a good deal of concern to those of us who have participated in our deliberations to date on this Bill. We had ample discussion of it upstairs in Committee, both in the context of Clause 36, which this House has now passed, and which sets out the code in respect of detained patients, and also in that of Clause 132, which applies that code to voluntary patients.
As we discussed these matters in Committee, we had a certain amount of common ground in our approach, though it did not in all cases lead us to the same conclusions. Part of our common ground was that nobody likes the censorship practice, for whatever reason. Another common ground we had was that we all realised that this was a difficult problem with conflicting considerations, with not markedly unequal forces weighing in the balance on either side.
Now, we have to approach this matter not on the basis of a clean slate as to whether or not there should be any control of correspondence, either incoming or outgoing, in respect of patients at all, because we are beyond that stage. We now have Clause 36 in the Bill, and we start from the basis that in respect of detained patients there will be a degree of control, requisite in their own interests and for the protection of the public outside. That is our starting position. Not only are the Clause 36 provisions in the Bill but they were strengthened by the Amendment which I moved today, based on an Amendment moved by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskiil) earlier, about defamatory letters sent by detained patients to persons outside.
9.15 p.m.
The question which the House must therefore decide on this Amendment is not the broad question whether any degree of censorship or control should be permissible but the narrow point whether there is any valid distinction in this context between the position of the detained patient, on the one hand, and


that of the voluntary or informal patient on the other hand. It is within that narrow context that we should base our decision on a question which we have conscientiously found to be difficult and troublesome. I must tell the right hon. Lady in all fairness that my mind on this matter is the same as it was in Standing Committee after considerable thought and weighing of these considerations.
The strength of the argument to omit these provisions in respect of the voluntary and informal patient is the desire as far as possible to treat patients who are suffering from mental or psychiatric illness on the same basis as patients who are suffering from physical illness, because wherever possible, that is one of the main principles which underlies our approach to the Bill. As against that, we have the position that we are to have control for the detained patient, which was overwhelmingly adopted by the Standing Committee. Then, if we accepted the right hon. Lady's Amendment, we should make a differentiation between the detained and the voluntary patient. That is a far more marked differentiation than the other differentiation which I mentioned, because it would be between people who are patients not only in the same hospital but often in the same ward. They will be patients cheek by jowl, one of whom has come in as a compulsory patient and one of whom has come in as a voluntary patient.
As I emphasised in the passage quoted earlier today on another Amendment, it is our position that, once these people enter the hospital, whatever the origin of their arrival, they are all treated as patients within the National Health Service. This disinction should therefore not be made.

Mr. John Paton: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is missing the point. We do not want to make a differentiation for the sake of making a differentiation. We want to make it easy for the patient outside to enter a hospital for voluntary treatment. If that patient knows in advance that he or she will be completely cut off from the possibility of normal communications with friends outside, except under conditions laid down in Clause 36, that will be a serious obstacle in getting patients to enter hospital at the proper time for effective treatment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We have to have that point in mind. If it were a fact that the application of these procedures was likely to be a deterrent to people seeking voluntary or informal treatment, that would be a very powerful argument. But our inquiries suggest that that is not the case. These powers are permissive, and obviously they will not be applied to all the correspondence of all the patients all the time, Very far from it. They are powers which are required for the difficult cases where there is reason to believe either that incoming correspondence will be injurious to the patient and detrimental to his treatment and chances of recovery or, conversely, where he is sending letters of a sort which are offensive to people outside.

Mr. Paton: That must mean a continuous censorship of the patient's ingoing and outgoing correspondence. It is that very fact that seems to us to be a deterrent to the patient entering a hospital.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I quite agree that, if one has not experience of the way in which it works, one might well think that that is so. In fact it is not so. We did not have the advantage of the assistance of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) on the Standing Committee, but if he would be good enough to look at the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), who has, as the hon. Member knows, had considerable service in this type of hospital, he will see it explained on that authority how this principle works in practice.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman finishes dealing with this subject, will he tell us whether in many hospitals voluntary and compulsorily detained patients are occupying the same wards? I am not aware of that.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Yes, it is quite true.

Mr. Walker-Smith: They are doing so, and it is part of the principle that I am putting forward in the Bill that that should be the case and anything which militated against that would be a retrograde step from one of the main principles which we have in mind.

Mr. Dodds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that the principle


is to mix certified and voluntary patients. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that already it is having a disastrous effect on people entering voluntarily, because they have to live day and night with those who have been certified? Therefore, the same thing can apply with the correspondence. Voluntary patients expect to have better treatment than those who have been already certified.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) knows, one of the things we are doing in the Bill is to get rid of certification. What we are anxious to do is to give the best treatment we can to everybody, no matter in what way they enter hospital.
The basic point about the two types of patient of whom we are speaking in this context is this. They will be suffering from the same form of mental disorder. It is the mental disorder which gives rise to the circumstances which may require control of their correspondence. It is not the fact of detention which gives rise to it. Persons suffering from a mental disorder may very well accept voluntary or informal treatment, and we hope that they will. If they have a relapse during treatment in hospital, they are equally liable to send the sort of letters against which the public have to be guarded as patients who have entered by compulsory methods.
I undertook in Committee to examine certain specific points which were raised. The right hon. Lady has said, rightly, that I have taken a good deal of care and trouble over this point. The first question was whether expert and responsible opinion thinks that the power is necessary in respect of the voluntary patient. As was pointed out in Committee, there are two minds amongst the expert opinion in the Royal Medico-Psychological Association, and so on, on the subject of censorship generally and whether there ought to be any. As I say, there are two minds on that, but there is only one mind on whether there should be any distinction between the voluntary and the detaitned patient. They take the view that there should not be a distinction between them.
The second question was that which we have already been discussing, and which was the subject of a good deal of the right hon Lady's opening observations

and of the interventions of the hon. Member for Norwich, North; that is to say, whether these provisions would deter people from accepting voluntary treatment. On the experts' advice that 1 have sought, and received, we are satisfied that this is not a real danger. Various restrictions, obviously, have to be placed even on informal and voluntary patients when suffering from mental disorders, in the course of their treatment and so on. Those are accepted, and the view is that this will be accepted as well.
The third question that I was asked was whether any special procedures could be applied in respect of voluntary patients different from those applied in respect of the detained patients. I have also looked at that. I do not think that it would be convenient or appropriate, because these matters of procedure in the hospital are for the responsible medical officer to deal with. We would be better to leave them to him to deal with as circumstances dictate rather than try to spell out such specific and individual details in a Statute.
As I hope the House will appreciate, I have gone into the matter very closely yet again following the Committee stage. That is my opinion now, and I must put it to the House. There is, however, just one point that I should add. In the course of my reconsideration I felt that the power which this Clause takes in respect of the local authority homes is rather different from that in respect of in-patients in the hospital.
Residents in the local authority homes are not likely to be suffering from the same severity of mental disorder as would make this sort of correspondence so likely to upset them, if it was incoming, or to be offensive to others if it was outgoing. I therefore propose to have Amendments tabled in another place to delete references to residents in local homes but, for the reasons I have given, I must advise the House that it is essential to retain the Clause in relation to hospital in-patients.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry that the Minister has not responded to my appeal, and as we feel very strongly on this aspect I must ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 149.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[7.57 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Albu, A. H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Orbach, M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.


Baird, J.
Grimond, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glerivil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, W.
Pearson, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


BIyton, W. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, N.


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Probert, A. R.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Boyd, T. C.
Holman, P.
Randall, H. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Redhead, E. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Reid, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clitfe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Snow, J. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
StonehouSe, John


Delargy, H. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Finch, H. J. (BedwelltV)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Wade, D. W.


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Weitzman, D.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.




Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard
Zilliacus, K.


Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.



Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Woof, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. S. T. Price.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Aitken, W. T.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Alport, C. J. M.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maydon)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, C. R. H.


Ashton, H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macctesf'd)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldock, Lt. Cmdr. J. M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


BaInlet, Lord
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Barber, Anthony
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Hesketh, R. F.
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Peel, W. J.


Batsford, Brian
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
PilkIngton, Capt. R. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.


BevIns, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pott, H. P.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hope, Lord John
Powell, J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bingham, R. M.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Body, R. F.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Redmayne, M.


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooman-White, R. C.
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, R. S.


Bryan, P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, R. C.


Campbell, Sir David
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Shepherd, William


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooper, A. E.
Keegan, D.
Speir, R. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kimball, M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Corteid, F. V.
Kirk, P. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Courtney, Col. Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Storey, S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James, (Moray)


Cunningham, Knox
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Derides, W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


de Ferranti, Basil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, W.


Donaldson, Crndr. C. E. MoA.
McAdden, S. J.
Thomas, Leslie, (Canterbury)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McMaster, S. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebono)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Gdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wall, Patrick


Cammans, Lady
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Webster, David


Glover, D.
Mathew, R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Godber, J. B.
Mawby, R. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Cough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Graham, Sir Fergus
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Woollam, John Victor


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Neave, Alrey



Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholls, Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Whitelaw.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, A.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Alport, C. J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nugent, C. R. H.


Ashton, H.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Page, R. G.


Barber, Anthony
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peel, W. J.


Batsford, Brian
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hesketh, R. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pott, H. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bidgood, J. C.
Hope, Lord John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bingham, R. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roper, Sir Harold


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clarke(E'b'gh, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Brewis, John
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharpies, R. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shepherd, William


Browne, J. Nixon (Craighton)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Burden, F. F. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, D.
Speir, R. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, P. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Storey, S.


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Knox
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, W.


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Davidson, Viscountess
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
McAdden, S. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Vesper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Doughty, C. J. A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


du Cann, E. D. L.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, S. R.
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Finlay, Graeme
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mathew, R.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Freeth, Denzil
Mawby, R. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, D.
Medlioott, Sir Frank
Woollam, John Victor


Glover, D.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Godber, J. B.
Nairn, D. L. S.



Gower, H. R.
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicholls, Harmar
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley. J. W.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Albu, A. H.
Burke, W.A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Burton, Miss F.E.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwelty)


Alien, Arthur (Bosworth)
Callaghan, L.J.
Fietcher, Eric


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Carmichael, J.
Forman, J.C.


Awbery, S.S.
Champion, A.J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chapman, W.D.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Baird, J.
Cliffe, Michael
Gibson, C. W.


Balfour, A.
Collick, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Benson, Sir George
Crossman, R.H.S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Blackbur, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grey, C.F.


Blenkinsop,.A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blyton, W.R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)


Boardman, H.
Deer, G.
Grimond, J.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Delargy, H.J.
Hale, Leslie


Bowde, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dodds, N.N.
Hanna, W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Donnelly, D. L.
Hastings, S.


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J.C.
Hayman, F. H.







Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hilton, A. V.
Moss, R.
Slater, Mrs. H, (Stoke, N.)


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Holmes, Horace
Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sparks, J. A.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hey, J. H.
Orbach, M.
Stonehouse, John


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hunter, A. E.
Owen, W. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attereliffe)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thornton, E,


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Timmons, J.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J.
Osborne, H. C.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parkin, B. T.
Wade, D. W.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, John
Warbey, W, N.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, N.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Prentice, R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Logan, D. G.
Probert, A. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Randall, H. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


MaoColl, J. E.
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McInnes, J.
Redhead, E. C.
Woof, R. E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Zilliacus, K.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


Moody, A. S.
Short, E, W.

Clause 66.—(POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS TO COMMIT FOR RESTRICTION ORDER.)

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, in page 47, line 38, to leave out from "and" to "of" in line 43 and to insert:
shall in accordance with the provisions of this Part".
This is a paving Amendment to those Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friends, in page 48, to leave out lines 1 to 3, and in line 8, to leave out subsection (4).
This Clause deals with the power of magistrates' courts, when they have heard a case and decided that it is appropriate that a hospital order should be made, but consider that, in view of the character of the offence or of the offender, a hospital order with special restrictions would be the appropriate way of dealing with the case, to commit the case to quarter sessions for sentence. It is not within the competence of a magistrates' court to make a hospital order with restrictions governing discharge.
8.15 p.m.
Under the committal procedure, there are two ways in which cases can be com-

mitted to quarter sessions. One is specifically under this Clause by which quarter sessions have an option of dealing with the case in one of two ways. They can either make a hospital order with or without restrictions, or they can deal with the case in such a way as the magistrates' court would have been able to deal with it had it not felt that a hospital order was appropriate. Subsection (4) gives power to commit to quarter sessions under Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. It was this power which gave rise to some discussion in Committee.
I took exception to the fact that this Clause includes wording such as
… where the court is of opinion that greater punishment should be inflicted for the offence than the court has power to inflict ".
It seemed to me that that wording was wholly inappropriate in a Bill dealing with mental disorder and the treatment of mental disorder, although it deals with treatment under conditions of compulsion. To talk about greater punishment when dealing with a man whom the courts have decided should be treated as a patient and not as a prisoner seemed to me wholly inappropriate.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given much thought to this matter, because he wrote to me at some length saying why he felt that it was necessary that the subsection should remain in the Clause. Although I appreciated his arguments, I am afraid that we could not accept them. Therefore, we tabled these Amendments, the effect of which would be to limit to some extent the power of quarter sessions to deal with cases committed from magistrates' courts. What they would have power to do would be to make a hospital order with or without special restrictions. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this is limiting the power of the higher court too severely, but in answer to that I would say that we are dealing with cases which have been heard in the magistrates' courts and where, in the face of the evidence produced, the court, on medical recommendations, has come to the conclusion that a hospital order is the appropriate way of disposing of the case. It can commit to quarter sessions only because it wishes to make a hospital order with special restrictions.
Under the Clause as it stands at present, quarter sessions may not only


make a hospital order hut may disagree with the lower court. It may disagree with the medical evidence submitted, and it may, under subsection (4), inflict a much heavier prison sentence than the magistrates' court would have had power to inflict. It may be that in certain cases a judge at quarter sessions, like some of our judges, is not altogether sympathetic to the views of psychiatrists and the science of psychiatry as a whole and he might, almost on a matter of principle, say, "This psychiatric evidence is a lot of poppycock". Indeed, there are judges who take that view and frequently say so almost in those terms. In those cases, instead of a man being sent to a mental hospital for treatment, because perhaps of the prejudice of the court he would be given a prison sentence of a considerably greater length than he could have been given in the magistrates' court.
We therefore think it appropriate that the court which hears the offence should make the decision whether a hospital order or prison is the appropriate way of dealing with a case. Once that decision has been made in favour of a hospital order, the higher court—quarter sessions —should only have the power either to make a plain hospital order or a hospital order with restrictions governing discharge.
In those circumstances, this would be the happiest way of dealing with what, I quite appreciate, is a very tricky type of case. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept these Amendments.

Mr. E. L. Mallalien: I beg to second the Amendment.
The object of the three Amendments is to try to achieve the state of affairs that, where a magistrate has passed upon the question of whether an individual before him is a mental or a criminal case, that decision should not be capable of being upset by a court of quarter sessions to whom he feels obliged to send the case for sentence. That is the essence of the matter.
When cases go to the court of quarter sessions for sentence, as the Joint Under-Secretary well knows there is no rehearing of evidence. All that happens is that the prosecutor, whoever he may be, recites the case and thereafter the police give evidence about the antecedents of the

offender. It is true that by subsection (3) of the Clause,
Where an offender is committed to quarter sessions under this section, the court of quarter sessions shall inquire into the circumstances of the case …
That does not mean, however, that there will be a rehearing or that the court of quarter sessions has the same opportunity of deciding upon the main question as has the magistrate who has had the various medical witnesses before him. The court of quarter sessions will not have those witnesses before it.
Therefore, our suggestion is that the question of whether an offender is a criminal or a mental sufferer is one which ought not Ito be passed upon again by the court of quarter sessions and that, in effect, the only question which the court of quarter sessions should be left to decide is whether there should be an order of restriction on discharge from hospital. That is the whole point of these Amendments. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman who is dealing with the matter knows that what I have said about the evidence not being heard again in quarter sessions is correct. That being so, he will, I think, admit that some very strong argument must be put forward for permitting the court of quarter sessions to reverse that decision upon which it has not heard the relevant evidence.

Mr. Renton: These three Amendments raise two quite separate matters. The first two of them deal with the powers which quarter sessions shall have when cases are committed to them by petty sessions. The third Amendment, the purpose of which is to leave out subsection (4), is much more of a drafting matter, although on this occasion it is an important drafting matter. Here is a question almost of statutory presentation. It is a point which worried me when hon. Members opposite raised it in Committee and I undertook to look into it carefully. I have done so very carefully. I have had consultations about it and I should like now to give the House the results of our further thoughts on the matter.
I take first the point of substance concerning powers of quarter sessions and whether these cases should be submitted to quarter sessions in this way. The effect of the first two Amendments would be to limit the discretion of quarter sessions


in those cases in which a magistrates' court thought that a hospital order with an order restricting discharge should be made. If the Amendment were accepted, it would have the result that quarter sessions would be obliged to make a hospital order whether they still thought it right or not and their discretion would be limited to deciding whether that hospital order, which they would have to make, should be accompanied by an order restricting discharge. We are agreed that that is the plain purpose of the Amendment. We say that it is too restrictive of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions.
In considering cases of this kind, quarter sessions will have to look not at all the evidence which went towards deciding whether the offence had been committed, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) seemed to suggest. They will have to look at those matters to which they are obliged to apply their minds under Clause 64 (1), namely,
the nature of the offence "—
not the way in which it was committed, but the offence of which the man has either been found guilty or to which he has pleaded guilty—
the antecedents of the offender and the risk of his committing further offences if set at large
and the question of the necessity of protecting the public.
Therefore, what quarter sessions will consider is this. They have to look at the medical evidence, the nature of the offences, the antecedents of the offender and the risk of his committing further offences if set at large. If they are to assess all those factors, it seems right that they, being the superior court, should be in a position to look at either the sentence or what is done in lieu of sentence as a whole and afresh and in the light of the circumstances at the time when the case comes before them, not in the light of circumstances some weeks or, perhaps, several months previously. They should be free not only to reject the proposal that a restriction order should be made, but also to overrule the decision that the making of the hospital order is the most suitable way of dealing with the case.
It is true that there will be many cases in which there would be in the mind of

either court, either petty sessions or quarter sessions, no doubt that admission to hospital is a proper course, but there will be other cases in which there will be grounds for more than one opinion as to the choice between hospital or probation with a condition of receiving treatment. The possibility of prison must also be considered, because a hospital order will be made only when there is no other suitable method of treating the patient bearing in mind the medical evidence as to his condition.
There will be yet other cases in which circumstances change between the hearing before petty sessions and the hearing at quarter sessions. That, above all, is the circumstances which I implore hon. Members opposite to bear in mind. Sometimes a person's mental condition will change very quickly. It may not be a deeply seated mental disease. It may be something quite temporary, due to some anxiety which may meanwhile have passed away.
There may be no mental condition to treat by the time a person comes before a quarter sessions. To insist then that the hospital order should still stand would seem quite wrong. We may also have cases in which, while the person's mental condition had been found to be bad, at the time petty sessions awarded the sentence, by the time he got to quarter sessions that court might have found that the offence had been committed quite a long time before the case even came before potty sessions, and that the appropriate way of dealing with the matter was to fine that person.
We are providing that there shall be no such thing as a hospital order and a fine. While it may be appropriate for quarter sessions to award a fine, if we limit the discretion of quarter sessions, in the way it is suggested we do, the difficulties which I have mentioned are very likely to arise. Surely, it is much better to leave a broad discretion to quarter sessions.
8.30 p.m.
I was a little shocked, if he will forgive me for saying so, when the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that there are chairmen of quarter sessions and judges—though it is irrelevant to bring judges into this context, unless they happen also to be chairmen of


quarter sessions as some of them are—who think that psychiatry is poppycock. I very much doubt whether in 1959 anybody holding a responsible judicial position feels in that way about these things. Bearing in mind that to overcome this difficulty would seem to be one of the main reasons prompting the moving of the Amendment, I should like to assure the hon. Member that I do not think that the difficulty exists. We feel it wrong and that it might be against the interests of the accused to fetter the court's discretion as suggested. We feel that it might even deprive the accused of his liberty when he should not be so deprived.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Supposing that at petty sessions the offender is found to be mental and not a criminal and he is then, as he must be under subsection (1), committed in custody to quarter sessions. Surely, that custody will be a medical custody at least as much as a prison custody. What is the position if, while in that custody, treatment is begun and then the man is taken to quarter sessions and, for one reason or another, quarter sessions does not approve of the mental aspect of the case as found by the court below and, half through his treatment, the man is sent away to some gaol? Is not that a likely thing to happen, and can it be contemplated by the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is a proper thing to happen?

Mr. Renton: I am not sure that I have understood that point. The hon. and learned Member will find that in the circumstances set out at the beginning of subsections (a) and (b), the court, instead of making a hospital order or dealing with this in any other manner, may—it is not compulsory—commit him in custody to quarter sessions to be dealt within respect of the offence. The two things are mutually exclusive. Either there is a hospital order, or there is not. if there is a hospital order then, as soon as the arrangements can be made, as required by Clause 59, the order will take effect, subject to the question of committal to quarter sessions to see whether or not there should be a restriction on discharge. While quarter sessions is considering the question of restriction on discharge, it is to be entitled under the Bill to review also the question whether the hospital order already made and already effective should stand. I think that is right.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: That is precisely my point. I feel, therefore, that a man might have had a hospital order made in respect of himself and treatment might be in process and he might be switched away to goal by a quarter sessions unsympathetic to this sort of thing. That seems to me highly improper.

Mr. Renton: I assure the hon. and learned Member that that person—and I refrain from referring to him as a prisoner or a patient—under Clause 66 (1) can be committed to hospital to await consideration of the matter by quarter sessions. In this context the hon. and learned Member may refer to Clause 67 (1) which endorses this.
I feel that I should now come to the question of whether subsection (4) should stand part of the Clause. I am quite prepared that we should consider that as an issue on its own. If subsection (4) were omitted, the magistrates would not be able, in the more difficult cases, to use the procedure under Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, because, having made up their minds for the purpose of Clause 59 (1) of the Bill that the most suitable method of disposing of the case was to make a hospital order with an order restricting discharge, they could not simultaneously be of the opinion for the purpose of Section 29 of the 1952 Act that greater punishment should be inflicted on the offender.
As a matter of drafting and of clarity and so that the courts understand exactly what powers they are using, we have to use these words -I have been into the question of whether the words have to be used—and we are able to assure hon. Members opposite that the infliction of greater punishment and the making of hospital orders are mutually exclusive, so there is no question of people who suffer from mental disorder being made the subject of criminal penalties. It is a question of the one or the other, but the most operative words of all in the subsection are in the last two lines:
…unless a hospital order is made in his case with an order restricting his discharge.
Unless that happens, quarter sessions shall have the power, which it has under the 1952 Act, of awarding a punishment which petty sessions would not have the power to do.
As I said in Committee, I feel that the insertion of these words
…that greater punishment should be inflicted…
were unfortunate in the context of a Bill of this kind. I am still rather sorry that we find it necessary to use them, but I am quite sure that, bearing in mind that clerks of magistrates' courts and quarter sessions and magistrates have to understand this matter and the familiarity which they already have with the 1952 Act, and bearing in mind the broad discretion they are given, these words are appropriate. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will feel a little less unhappy about the matter than he did before.

Mr. Ede: I feel profoundly uncomfortable about this Clause on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and the explanation that has been given by the Joint Under-Secretary.
I do not like the position which seems to be created by this Clause, in which there may be a refusal on the part of quarter sessions to accept a finding that has already been made by a court of summary jurisdiction. Generally in these Section 29 cases there has been a conviction. Quite frequently it is a conviction as a result of the confession of the person who has been charged, and the magistrates' court, in cases that come under Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, often find that the person charged has so long a record of crime that any punishment which the court could inflict would be quite inadequate. So the court sends him to quarter sessions, where the same record is read out which is already admitted at the court of summary jurisdiction. Then the magistrate sitting in quarter sessions can decide what is the appropriate penalty. There is never any question then arising of the matter not having been properly brought to the court of quarter sessions.
As I understand it, a magistrates' court will not be able to make an order sending a man to the special hospital—

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite right there. A magistrates' court will be able to make a hospital order, but it will not be able to make a hospital order with a restriction on discharge.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not give me time to make the exception that I was going to make along the lines which he has just indicated. I would have thought that this would be a better way of dealing with the matter, and I suggest it to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to his right hon. and learned Friend. Would it not be better to put an obligation on the magistrates' court, if it suspects that the case is one that is more properly treated by a hospital order, to call medical evidence, and if the medical evidence supports the view —or at any rate leaves a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court—then, without registering a conviction or doing anything of that kind, the case should go to quarter sessions to be heard, with no conviction having been recorded against the person in the court below?
I suppose if a magistrates' court finds a person guilty and makes a hospital order, that would be a thing which the defendant, the person convicted, could appeal against to quarter sessions in the ordinary way. He could probably appeal both against a conviction and against the sentence—if we regard a hospital order as a sentence. Of course, if he upsets the conviction, then anything that has happened after the conviction automatically lapses.
I suggest that in order to avoid getting the kind of conflict between the court of summary jurisdiction and the court of quarter sessions, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North mentioned in the course of his speech, it would be much better that some such course as I have suggested should be brought into the Bill instead of the course that is now prescribed.
I will not press the hon. and learned Gentleman to give me an answer now, but the Minister has been so willing to accept suggestions on the practical working of this Measure, both between the Committee stage and this stage and between this stage and the fate of the Bill in another place, that I hope all the arrangements contemplated in this Clause will be further examined. In spite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the prevalence of scientific thinking on psychiatry and similar subjects by magistrates—I will not say anything about judges—I am afraid that his experience of magistrates has been of appearing before them and not of listening to what


they say in the magistrates' room before they go in. When they hear that a psychiatrist is to be called or after they have heard a psychiatrist, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that on occasions, and not only among the senior members of the bench but also among the ordinary magistrates, it is possible to hear views on psychiatry that, in view of what he said at the Box this evening, would greatly shock him if he heard them.
8.45 p.m.
This is a very difficult subject. We are trying to do the best we can for a class of persons who appear in the courts and who have sometimes probably suffered because of misunderstanding on the bench about the true nature of their mental make-up. I hope that we will not regard the Clause in its present form as necessarily being the last word in 1959 on this issue of how to deal with something which has been found in the magistrates' court and then sent to quarter sessions. I should prefer these cases to be dealt with at quarter sessions rather than by magistrates because if there is a defence at quarter sessions the issue will be decided by the jury, which would be of value in these matters.

Mr. Renton: Although the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was good enough to say that he did not intend to press me for an answer to his suggestions now, I shall take note of what he has said and we shall very willingly think about the matter again. I want to clarify the field of agreement or the issue between us.
We are dealing with people first brought before the petty sessions, and rightly brought before the petty sessions, in the ordinary way. At the time they are brought before the petty sessions, the court does not know whether they suffer from any mental illness or disorder. They may be guilty or not guilty. In many cases it will be quite right for the petty sessions to decide the issue of guilt.
Then comes the question of sentence, and it is on the question of sentence that dissatisfaction with the machinery proposed has been expressed.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: indicated assent.

Mr. Renton: At least the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) nods his head on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that when the petty sessions felt that there was a case in which there might be an order restricting discharge, as well as a hospital order, instead of making a hospital order, the petty sessions should send the matter to quarter sessions, both for making a hospital order and for making an order restricting discharge.

Mr. Ede: I should prefer the magistrates, in cases where they felt a hospital order might be required, to send those cases to quarter sessions, just as they send other cases where they have no jurisdiction. In a case of breaking and entering, for instance, if the magistrates feel that there is a case to answer, they send it to quarter sessions or assizes. I should adopt a similar rule for cases of this kind where the mental capacity of the accused is so much in question and when a hospital order may have to he considered.

Mr. Renton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but he will appreciate that it would be a major departure from the Bill's provisions if we were to say that the question of guilt should be decided by quarter sessions in cases in which that issue would normally have been decided by the magistrates. However, I think that we understand his argument sufficiently to say that we will give the Clause further thought in the light of his suggestions and, if necessary, arrange for Amendments to be moved in another place. I can give no firm undertaking that at the end of our further deliberations on this quite difficult point we shall find it necessary or desirable to move an Amendment. All that I am saying is that we will consider it.

Mr. K. Robinson: Because of the result of some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier careful consideration of the Amendments moved from this side of the House, I feel that it would be churlish to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment since the hon. and learned Gentleman has again said that he will give this matter careful consideration. Indeed, he has said that he will give the whole Clause careful consideration. At the same time, I accept that he is not committed in any way to amending the Clause in another place.
Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to take up one


point that the hon. and learned Gentleman adduced against the Amendment. He said that a patient or an offender might come along to quarter sessions when he had been receiving treatment for his attack of mental disorder. The mental disorder which caused the court of summary jurisdiction to suggest that a hospital order was appropriate might have been a mild one. At the time he comes to quarter sessions he may no longer be suffering from mental disorder. Surely, it is this type of case which makes this procedure highly inappropriate. Is it not wrong for a court of quarter sessions, which inevitably sees the patient at a much greater distance of time from the offence he committed, or is alleged to have committed, than does the court of summary jurisdiction to have the opportunity of overthrowing the medical evidence based on a date much nearer the commission of the offence?
The second case which the hon. and learned Gentleman specifically mentioned was that where a patient was committed in custody to quarter sessions. Under the Bill committal in custody will nearly always mean in custody in a mental hospital, probably undergoing treament. It may well be that the treatment, in fact, cures him of his disorder, or his attack, or whatever one likes to call it, before the time comes for him to go up to quarter sessions. Is it not right in those circumstances that it should be left to the doctors, the responsible medical officers in the case of an ordinary hospital order, to say that the man no longer needs medical treatment and can safely be discharged?
Even if one says that it is still necessary for the man to come before quarter sessions for an order restricting discharge, surely it would be most improper for that court to say that because this man appears to them to be not suffering from any mental disorder at that date it therefore disagrees with the magistrates who, three months before, had said that in their view the man was a proper case for a hospital order?
This illustrates the great difficulties in which we find ourselves in this Clause in dealing with this type of case. It is because I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he will give

careful consideration to the whole case that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71.—(REMOVAL TO HOSPITAL OF PERSONS SERVING SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 50, line 39, leave out from "disorder" to end of line 40 and insert:
is of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 72.—(REMOVAL TO HOSPITAL OF OTHER PRISONERS.)

Amendment made: In page 52, line 9, leave out "renders him suitable to be detained" and insert:
warrants the detention of the patient".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 75.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO PERSONS COMMITTED FOR TRIAL OR SENTENCE, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 55, line 2, leave out "renders him suitable to be detained" and insert:
warrants the detenton of the patient".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 78.—(RECEPTION INTO GUARDIAN- SHIP OF PERSONS SENT TO APPROVED SCHOOLS.)

Amendment made: In page 56, line 22, leave out from "that" to "into" in line 23 and insert:
the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants the reception of the patient"—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 79.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART V.)

Amendment made: In page 57, line 21, leave out from beginning to "of" in line 22 and insert:
liable to be detained in a hospital within the meaning of Part IV".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 81.—(REMOVAL TO SCOTLAND OF PATIENTS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION ON DISCHARGE.)

Amendments made: In page 59, line 26, leave out from beginning to "is" and insert "Where the patient".—[Mr. Renton.]

In line 36, leave out from beginning to "is" and insert "Where the patient".

In line 45, leave out from beginning to "is" and insert "Where the patient".[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 92.—(PATIENTS ABSENT FROM HOSPITALS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 67, line 20, to leave out from "forty" to second "the" in line 23 and to insert:
or section one hundred and thirty-eight of this Act may be taken into custody in England and Wales may be taken into custody in, and returned to England and Wales from, any other part of the United Kingdom or".
This Amendment goes with a later Amendment on page 91, line 8, to leave out subsection (6) of Clause 138. The effect of the two Amendments is to transfer from Clause 138 (6) to Clause 92, with which we are here dealing, the power to retake in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man those patients who would be liable to retake under Clause 138 if found in England and Wales. Thus all the powers to retake patients outside England and Wales will be contained in Clause 92 which will apply in these other countries powers which for England and Wales are described in Clauses 40 and 138.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 96.—(PROVISION OF INSTITUTIONS FOR TREATMENT UNDER CONDITIONS OF SPECIAL SECURITY.)

Amendment made: In page 68, line 35, leave out "state institutions" and insert "special hospitals".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 97.—-(ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 68, line 37, leave out "state institutions" and insert "special hospitals".

In page 68, line 40, leave out "such institutions" and insert "those hospitals".

In page 69, line 3, leave out "state institution" and insert "special hospital".

In page 69, line 6, leave out "state institution" and insert "special hospital".

In page 69, line 8, leave out "such institution" and insert "special hospital".

In page 69 leave out line 12 and insert:
special hospital into a hospital not being a special hospital".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 122.—(POWERS OF TRIBUNALS.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 80, line 12, to leave out from "detained" to end of line 29 and insert:

under this Act, the tribunal may in any case direct that the patient be discharged, and shall so direct if they are satisfied—

(a) that he is not then suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, subnormality or severe subnormality; or
(b) that it is not necessary in the interests of the patient's health or safety or for the protection of other persons that the patient should continue to be liable to be detained; Or
(c) in the case of an application under subsection (3) of section forty-four or subsection (4) of section forty-eight of this Act, that the patient, if released, would not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself.


(2) Where application is made to a Mental Health Review Tribunal by or in respect of a patient who is subject to guardianship under this Act, the tribunal may in any case direct that the patient be discharged, and shall so direct if they are satisfied—

(a) that he is not then suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, subnormality or severe subnormality; or
(b)that it is not necessary in the interests of the patient, or for the protection of other persons, that the patient should remain under such guardianship.


This is mainly a drafting Amendment, though it has one alteration of substance. Clause 122 prescribes the powers of mental health review tribunals to discharge patients after considering an application or reference in regard to them. It prescribes criteria on which the tribunal must be satisfied before it may discharge a patient.
Some rewording of the Clause is necessary, following Amendments which we made in Committee, in particular in regard to the criterion of the "interests of the patient's health or safety". Lines 24 and 25 are appropriate for patients detained in hospital but not for patients under guardianship, where the criterion is simply to be "the interests of the patient". The words "health or safety" were introduced by Amendment in Committee with hospital cases in mind, but no consequential Amendment was made to put right the criterion for guardianship cases.
In order to meet this need we have redrafted subsection (1) and divided it into two subsections, dealing separately with hospitals and guardianship. At the same time we have taken the opportunity to improve the wording and also to introduce the one change of substance to which I referred and which I hope will commend itself to the House.
The Clause as it stands in the Bill requires a tribunal to discharge when satisfied on the criteria, which is, of course, quite proper, but it does not permit it discretionally to discharge in other circumstances. In the Amendment, we propose to give the tribunal discretion to discharge in any case, and to require it to discharge if it is satisfied in respect of the criteria which are specified in the Bill. I think that is the right approach, because the other people who have the power to discharge, that is to say, the nearest relative, the hospital managers, the responsible medical officer and so on, have complete discretion to discharge if they think fit. So it is right that these tribunals, which we are carefully constituting with balanced representation and which have judicial or quasi-judicial functions to perform, should not be at a disadvantage, and that, in addition to having a duty to discharge when satisfied of the criteria, should have a discretion to discharge in any case.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are glad to have had the explanation just given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think he will appreciate that we have been in some difficulty—of which we make no complaint—because many of the Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper only a short while before this stage of the Bill began, and therefore it has not been easy for us to cover as fully as we would have wished the voluminous series of Amendments, which we have received with so much gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
We welcome the explanation that he has given and we fully agree that it is desirable to make the Amendments which he mentioned, as well as to carry out the rewording consequential on the earlier decisions we reached.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 80, line 30, leave out "any such application is made" and insert:
application is made to a Mental Health Review Tribunal under any provision of this Act".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 131.—(PROVISION OF POCKET MONEY FOR IN-PATIENTS IN HOSPITAL.)

Amendments made: In page 85, line 32, leave out "state institutions" and insert "special hospitals".

In page 86, line 1, leave out "State institutions" and insert "special hospitals".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 137.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CUSTODY, CONVEYANCE AND DETENTION.)

Amendment made: In page 89, line 33, leave out "other".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 138.—(RETAKING OF PATIENTS ESCAPING FROM CUSTODY.)

Amendments made: In page 91, line 4, leave out from "leave" to "section" in line 5 and insert "within the meaning of".

In line 8, leave out subsection (6)—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 139.—(PROTECTION FOR ACTS DONE IN PURSUANCE OF TI-HS ACT.)

Amendment made: In page 91, line 38, leave out "accordingly".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 143.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND RULES.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 92, line 39, at the end, to insert:
except as hereinafter provided in this section.
It is customary in this House to object to the negative procedure on Orders submitted before the House. Right from the start, therefore, there may be a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment which calls for the affirmative procedure for the one set of regulations, and one set only, provided for in the Bill.
This is a paving Amendment for the consequential Amendment in page 92, line 41, at end insert:
(3) No statutory instrument containing rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section one hundred and twenty-three of this Act shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
This Amendment relates to the very important rules which under Clause 143 are to be established by the Lord Chancellor to deal with the operation of the tribunals. I think it would be agreed that these are some of the most important of the rules that we have to consider. There is common agreement in the House that one of the difficulties of orders submitted under the more normal negative procedure is that there are not only no opportunities of amendment of the Order but that there is a danger that Orders may pass by without the full consideration of the House. It is particularly important in this case, when we are dealing with a matter of so much relevance to the liberty of the subject. Therefore, I am not only appealing to the interest of the House, which is traditional on this type of Amendment, but to the special consideration of the House in relation to the specific provisions of the Clause.
I think it right that I should explain to the House that we had some discussion of this matter generally in Committee and it was suggested that there were very wide powers of Order making in the


Bill. Indeed, one can find in the Bill all too many cases in which the Minister has wide powers to provide by regulation for a whole series of events. We have looked at these, at the Minister's own invitation, rather carefully to discover which we feel most clearly justifies the affirmative procedure. We have had correspondence from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which we have welcomed, explaining his views on other regulations in other parts of the Bill and why he feels that he is following long-established precedent in using the negative procedure in these cases.
We would agree that in many of these cases the matters to be dealt with are relatively minor. Many of them are administrative matters and it is not easy to isolate the more important matters of principle from the general question of administration. For that reason, we have not pressed for the affirmative procedure to be used in all these cases, although it would have been quite open to us to have done so. We feel that the success of the Bill largely depends on the acceptance of the tribunal procedure as being the real safeguard of the liberty of the individual.
The anxieties expressed on Second Reading and in Committee can best be set at rest in our view by the emphasis which we give to the way in which this tribunal procedure is to operate and the form of its composition, which we may be discussing at a later stage. It seems to us, therefore, that here is abundant evidence of the desirability of using the affirmative procedure. We would hope that even if it is the case that the Minister is not able to accept the Amendment at this stage he would look at the matter again and consider whether he would follow the precedent which he himself has been setting, offer a further opportunity of amending this point and table a suitable Amendment at a later stage in another place.
9.45 p.m.
I hope that he will feel himself able to say that he will look at this matter again sympathetically. I am sure that he wants this procedure to be successful, and I sincerely feel that it would add to its success if he would accept that point of view, even though he may wish to give further consideration to the way in which

he carries it out. I do not think that we on this side of the House would wish to press the matter to a Division. I hope that he will be able, as he has made many concessions to our points of view during the course of the Bill, to show his good will on this further occasion.

Dr. Johnson: I rise to support the Amendment and to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will give it his consideration in the manner that has been urged on him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) who proposed it.
We have had a series of debates in Committee on this question of individual liberty, and several of us were reluctant to accept these review tribunals, in the first place, as a court of appeal and rather urged that they should take the place of the justices. We struck that out in Committee and accepted the majority decision of the Committee on it.
We are left now with the tribunals as the defenders of individual liberty on this important, complicated and frequently contentious question. I have expressed my own anxieties on the question of these rules in the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in my name and the name of three other hon. Members on both sides of the House. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, quite correctly, did not call it because we had discussed this matter rather fully in Committee, when I took the opportunity of making a rather invidious comparison between the rights of ordinary mental patients who would be taken into hospital and detained and the rather superior rights of those who came into the courts. As I went into that question fully in Committee, I do not want to detain the House with any arguments on those lines now.
The rights that are retained in the Bill in the case of patients from the courts, as set out in Clause 61, are the basic safeguards for the individual against wrongful detention. I am pleased to say that I have found them elsewhere in my researches during the last day or two. I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend had given us an assurance that these tribunals would come under the Council on Tribunals under the recent Act and be guided by it.
I am glad to find that our own Government literature set out generally the aims in regard to tribunals and the changes


that have been made recently. This states that the change is to ensure that in these inquiries and tribunals the individual citizen will get a fair hearing. He will have access to reports, he will have the right to see certain documents and know the reasons for decisions, he will not suffer from a ban on legal representation, and he will be able to call and question witnesses.
These are the basic things which have been generally adopted by all Government Departments and naturally one is pleased to have the assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend that these will be the principles governing the tribunals. So we are not really very far apart on this point and there is only a small difference between the fact that the Minister has given these various promises and the matters which I have set out in my Amendment which we would like to have seen written into the Bill.
I hope I may say just a word on this matter from a purely personal point of view, because I have special reasons for feeling strongly on this subject. It may be, to use the jargon in which we are working at present, that I am slightly paranoiac on the subject, so I hope I may be pardoned a brief reference to my personal experience. The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said we might all be potential patients. I can speak as an actual former patient, so I am rather one up, so to speak. May I, therefore, briefly use my experience not only as an illustration but also to help to express the strength of my feelings on this matter? Several hon. Members, in addition to the right hon. Lady, have told mental health stories, and we were particularly touched by her own when we debated the Report of the Royal Commission.
For obvious reasons, I have had a certain amount of diffidence about telling my own story, but now I get round to it I feel that, instead of providing a spice of novelty, I may be in danger of proving to be something of a bore if I go into it in full. It gives us perhaps a natural feeling of élan as Members of Parliament when we appear in the Sunday papers, as I did last Sunday, with an incident that happened some eight years ago. But, of course, a wealth of speculation and mystery, such as appeared to surround me, does not really replace proper and

contemporary evidence, which may be brought at the time, or the chance to examine witnesses and so on. We have a large amount of lore on the question of detention in mental hospitals to draw upon, and I am drawing from transatlantic lore when I use the phrase about being rail-roaded into a mental hospital. That is an American phrase, of course, and conditions there have been in many respects similar to those in this country in the past.
Not only should that not be done, not only should there be no chance of that kind of thing being done, but there should not even be the suspicion floating about that it might have been done at any time. If we are to have confidence in the working of this Measure and in the general mental health services. I am not happy about one part of the rules already contained in Clause 123. In subsection (2, c) of that Clause there is the prohibition of the publication of reports of proceedings.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We are far past that. We are now on Clause 143.

Dr. Johnson: My apologies, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was something of a digression.
To revert to the question of rules in general, there is possibly some object in these things, because even though some stories may seem fantastic the patient should have the opportunity to examine witnesses since sometimes even the most fantastic story can prove true.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is now dealing with an Amendment which was not selected.

Dr. Johnson: My apologies. I will return to the Amendment now before us.
Those are my reasons for supporting the Amendment. These are very important matters and the House should have the opportunity to debate them under the affirmative procedure. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the matter, and, between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, will meet a number of us who are particularly anxious about this matter and who would like to have the opportunity to talk to him about these things.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The rules which the Lord Chancellor will make to guide the procedure of these tribunals are a matter of great importance on which we had some discussion in Committee. Whether a Statutory Instrument is subject to negative or affirmative resolution is not constitutionally so important as hon. Members are sometimes disposed to suggest. The importance to some extent varies with the geographical positions which we occupy in the House from time to time. Experience of these things tends to show that there is less difference than one might suppose, because basically there is an effective form of Parliamentary control with either method.
Part of the case of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) is that a Statutory Instrument which is subject to negative procedure cannot be amended. However, that is an inhibition which flows not from the form of Parliamentary control, but from the very nature of the Statutory Instrument itself. Whichever way it is done, one cannot amend a Statutory Instrument.
As the hon. Member was good enough to tell the House, I have had some correspondence with him and one of his hon. Friends about this matter, and I said then that the principle seemed overwhelmingly in favour of the negative procedure in this context. The negative procedure for a Statutory Instrument is normal unless the Statutory Instrument falls into one of those categories of case to which the affirmative resolution is constitutionally and procedurally considered to be more appropriate.
10.0 p.m.
Those are, in fact, three. First, where the powers are given which, when they are exercised, will substantially affect the provision of an Act of Parliament either by altering its language or increasing or limiting the extent of its duration. Secondly, powers which impose a financial charge such as, for instance, the Purchase Tax Orders to take a familiar instance. Thirdly, what are known as skeleton powers where the parent Act fixes the purpose but leaves the whole of the substance to be dealt with by subordinate legislation as, for example, in an Act passed during the period in office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947.
When the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation considered this matter in 1953, it quoted the evidence of senior Parliamentary counsel to the effect that at least three-quarters of the instances of affirmative procedure would in fact come within these three categories to which I have referred, and the residue would come within the various miscellaneous cases which, for a particular reason, were thought to be of special importance.
That is the broad principle which governs the procedure as to whether it be affirmative or negative, and rules made to govern the procedure of tribunals occupy a clear position in the negative part of the field. They do not come within any of the three categories to which I have referred, and they are therefore within the negative category. Even the rules of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, are subject to negative resolutions only, and we could hardly invest these rules, important as we think them to be, with higher constitutional safeguards and procedures than are considered necessary in the case of the Supreme Court itself.
We have abundant safeguards here under the negative procedure, apart from the negative procedure itself, which, we all know, having attended here late at night to hear these matters debated, is a very effective form of Parliamentary control. In addition to that, the rules are to be made not by an ordinary Departmental Minister but by the Lord Chancellor himself. But, not only that, they are to be submitted in draft to the scrutiny of the Council on Tribunals.
Having regard to the long tradition which puts these so inescapably into the negative part of the field, it would be a very odd time to depart from precedent in that regard when we have got the Tribunals Act working and have got the advantage of a Council on Tribunals to which we can submit these rules in draft.
I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman, who was perfectly right to raise this matter on the Floor of the House—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not think he was wrong—will, having heard the overwhelming arguments against it, now give still further evidence of the rectitude of his judgment by agreeing not to press the Amendment now.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I listened with a little sorrow, and not altogether with surprise, to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I confess that the precedents he has submitted for our attention are strong ones, but the difficulty about the negative procedure is that the Orders become operative as soon as they are published and before the House has an opportunity of discussing the matter. I will not urge that point further.
I would make the plea to him that he should find some way, both in relation to these rules and to other regulations that are provided for in this Bill where they are of some considerable significance, particularly affecting the liberty of the individual, of discussing them as widely as possible before they are published so that we can have the widest understanding of their purport. I hope that if I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that we shall keep in mind the arguments that he has made and that they may become of value and of use within who knows how soon—perhaps within a short period of time.
On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 145.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: In page 93, line 6, at end insert:
absent without leave" has the meaning assigned to it by section forty of this Act.

In page 93, line 15, leave out "state institution" and insert special hospital".

In page 94, line 1, leave out "state institution" and insert "special hospital ".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

First Schedule.—(MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNALS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 97, line 14, to leave out "or" and to insert "such".
This is an Amendment to clarify the First Schedule of the Bill and arises out of points made during the Committee stage discussions. The Amendment makes clear that experience in administration does not necessarily mean just experience in the administration of the social services. By omitting the word "or" it paves the way for the addition

of further alternative qualifications referred to in the next Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 97, line 14, after "services", to insert:
or such other qualifications or experience.
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in the Committee to check the drafting of paragraph 1 (c) of the First Schedule to ensure that it is wide and clear enough to enable psychologists, social workers, and other people with the kind of experience which is likely to be valuable on the tribunals, to come in this category. It also removes doubt about the power to appoint suitable justices of the peace to serve on the tribunals and so enable some of their experience to be used in that way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 97, line 32, to leave out "and".
This is a paving Amendment for the Amendment in the following line. Perhaps we may take them together.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that one or more of the members of each tribunal will have to he drawn from category (c) as described in line 12 on page 97; that is to say, the category to which we generically refer as the lay members as distinct from the legal and medical members. This also gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 97, line 33, at end insert:
and
(c) one or more shall be appointed from the members who are neither legal nor medical members."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Second Schedule.—(SECTIONS SUBSTI- TUTED FOR EDUCATION ACT, 1944, s. 57.)

Amendments made In page 98, line 32, to leave out from first "the" to "arrangements" and to insert:
functions of the local health authority with respect to the making of".

In line 36 leave out "execution of that duty" and insert "discharge of those functions".

In page 99, line 31, at beginning insert:
(1) For the purposes of sections fifty-seven and fifty-seven A of this Act a child for whom


education is provided by one local education authority in the area of another local education authority shall be treated as if he were in the area of the first-mentioned authority; but any functions of the local education authority under those sections may, in accordance with arrangements made between them, be performed on behalf of the first-mentioned authority by the other authority, and the reference in subsection (1) of the said section fifty-seven to a medical officer of the authority shall be construed accordingly. — [Mr. Thompson]

Third Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF PART IV TO PATIENTS ADMITTED TO HOS- PITAL OR PLACED UNDER GUARDIAN SHIP UNDER PART V.)

Amendment made: In page 101, line 11, column 3, leave out from first "and" to end of line 13 and insert:
for the words from ' he has ceased ' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words ' the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the first day of his absence on leave ".—[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 101, line 24, column 2, to leave out "transfer" and to insert "removal".
The word "removal" is more appropriate, because that is the expression actually used in Clauses 70, 71 and 72.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 28, column 3, leave out "for his admission", and insert:
or direction for his admission or removal".[Mr. Renton.]

Sixth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 108, line 18, to leave out "sections eleven and" and to insert "section".
This Amendment is consequential. Perhaps, in moving it, I might be allowed to say, in order to avoid tedious repetition on my part, that all the remaining Amendments are either of a drafting character or are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 108, leave out line 23 and insert:
Until the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Act or until registration is effected under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, whichever first occurs

In line 29, leave out "registered under the said Part VIII", and insert:
a registered hospital as defined by section seventeen of this Act".

In line 37, leave out "were so registered" and insert:
as if the particulars of registration were entered".

In line 39, at the end, insert:
(2) Before the expiration of the said period of six months the registration authority for the purposes of the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to mental nursing homes shall, without an application being made in that behalf,

(a) register any person or committee mentioned in the foregoing sub-paragraph in respect of the relevant house, hospital or home as a mental nursing home and (except as mentioned in that sub-paragraph) enter the particulars of registration in the said separate part of the register; and
(b) issue to him or them a certificate of registration specifying as the number of persons permitted to be kept at any one time in the home the number permitted to be kept there immediately before the commencement of this Act.

In page 109, line 3, leave out "were so registered" and insert:
as if the particulars of registration were entered".

In line 32, leave out "were so registered", and insert:
as if the particulars of registration were so entered".

In line 40, after "fifteen", insert: "or subsection (1) of section twenty".

In page 110, line 30, leave out from "which" to "under" in line 31, and insert:
warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for medical treatment, or his retention".

In page 112, line 5, leave out from beginning to "under" in line 6, and insert:
warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for medical treatment or, as the case may be, his retention".

In page 114, line 18, leave out "may and insert" shall ".

In line 20 at end, insert:
and subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-two of this Act shall have effect in relation to the application as if paragraph (b) of that subsection were omitted ".

In page 117, line 41 leave out "information or any—[Mr. Walker-Smith].

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (ORNAMENTAL POTTERY)

10,12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I beg to move, That the Import Duties (General) (No. 5) Order, 1959 (S.1., 1959, No. 736), dated 21st April, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be approved.
The Order which I am asking the House to approve increases the import duty on ornamental pottery, which I will define in a moment, from 25s. to £4 10s. per cwt. It was made under the powers conferred in Section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1958, and it is the second Order of its kind increasing a duty to be made since that Act came fully into operation on 1st January this year.
It is difficult to give the House a succinct description of the articles of domestic pottery to which the increased duty applies. The articles are best defined by exclusion, as has been done in the Schedule to the Order. Articles such as vases, statuettes, and candlesticks, are covered by the increased duty, while the duty of 25s. per cwt. remains unchanged on the ordinary run of tableware, whether decorated or not, such as cups, saucers, plates, teapots and coffee pots. There is a marginal field of highly ornamental tableware such as marmalade jars in the shape of oranges—save the mark, such things do exist—and cream jugs in the shape of cows. These are also covered by the increased duty.
The duty had remained unchanged since 1933. The pottery manufacturers asked for increased protection on ornamental pottery on the ground that the ad valorem incidence of that duty had become negligible; that imports which were already substantial were increasing in relation to domestic production, and that manufacturers in this country, though efficient, could not compete with foreign imports, mainly from Italy and Western Germany, unless afforded a considerably higher level of protection. The manufacturers were concerned to secure increased protection against the cheaper kinds of imported ware only. They were not concerned about imports of line high quality articles.
After we had considered all the information available, we concluded that the manufacturers in this country, although efficient, were suffering such damage from foreign competition and had made a case for some increase in protective duty. We decided that a duty of £4 10s. per cent. on ornamental pottery would be appropriate and the Order provides accordingly.
The duty has been kept on a specific basis because an ad valorem duty would have meant a much bigger increase in the duty on imports of the higher priced ware. We have complied in every way with the requirements of the G.A.T.T.

10.16 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: We are grateful to the Minister of State for the clear explanation he has given, however shortly, of an Order which is of great importance to certain sections of the pottery industry throughout the country.
We give this Order a welcome, although we think it is belated. The Minister of State will know better than I that throughout last year the increase in the imports of these articles of ornamental ware was 25 per cent. greater than in the year before and that throughout 1958 they appeared to run to the value of £11 million. That is a very considerable sum of money for the import of objects, the majority of which are not in themselves intrinsically valuable or highly delectable. I was delighted to hear the Minister of State make quite clear that the manufacturers in no way fear competition or wish to be protected against competition from articles of a similar type to those we make, or which in some cases may be superior to articles we sometimes make in this country. That type of competition we do not fear, nor do we ask for protection against it. When I say "we" I must be forgiven, for I forget myself as I have a special interest in that I represent a constituency which is well known to have an interest in pottery generally.
The position has been made worse for manufacturers, as the Minister of State knows, because Purchase Tax is imposed on pottery and because the imposition of Purchase Tax naturally widens the gap between cheaper and dearer pottery whatever the article be. Inevitably it tends to widen the gap. The cheaper the


article imported the more advantage it gets when there is an imposition of Purchase Tax as well as import duty when it is sold. These statuettes and ornaments have been made in this country for more than 200 years. We are delighted to see this action taken at long last by the Government because we feel it gives some protection for our craftsmen. Whether it be at the very beginning, the artist modeller who makes the first model, the mould-maker who must make the mould on which these articles will be based, or the caster or decorator who ultimately finishes the article by means of paint, the degree of craftsmanship if the article is to be good—and most of ours, I assert, are good—is very high.
Naturally, all of us in this House are anxious that we should give as much encouragement as possible to craftsmanship in an industry of this type, and indeed to industries of every type in this country. We must see that the premium we offer is of encouragement to the industry in my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends to the north and south in Stoke-on-Trent, where a great many articles of this ornamental nature are made, whether they be flowers in bouquets, pottery or statuettes.

About 100 years ago these articles were made with some social sense of criticism of the lives we lived. I remember having one of a most elegant type, which showed a very handsomely attired young man, with a stiff bowler hat of the type worn in the 1840s, and beautifully striped trousers, with a bouquet in his hands, and on the base, where his feet were planted, was the one word "Water". When one turned him round, it was the same young man, but now ragged, with a battered hat and nothing in his hands, while the base on which he stood bore one word, and that word was "Gin". I thought very highly of this particular object, but, fortunately or unfortunately, when the great ballerina, Miss Margot Fonteyn, saw it, my wife gave it to her, and she found it most interesting and delectable. I am sorry that they do not make these little criticisms of our daily lives in these days in my constituency. We welcome this order for the aid which it will give to the pottery industry, and we are very grateful for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 5) Order, 1959 1959, No. 736), dated 21st April 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (CROFTERS BUILDING GRANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.22 p.m.

Mr. John MacLeod: I am glad to be able to raise this evening the case of a constituent of mine who has been refused a grant under the Crofters Building Grants (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, for the sole reason, as far as I can see, that he is considered to be an incomer of professional status. By the refusal of this grant, I think the Government are defeating their own policy with regard to the Highlands.
I should first of all like to give a short résuméof the history of this case. Mr. G. W. Ginn, now a crofter at 48, Lone-lunar, Strath, Gairloch, when he had a post at Woolwich, read an address given by Sir Robert Urquhart shortly after he became Chairman of the Crofters Commission. As a result, Mr. Ginn gave up his post and decided to return to the Highlands. I used the word "return" deliberately, as his wife was a native of Ullapool, a nearby township to Gairloch, and Mr. Ginn's forebears left that area for Canada, Mr. Ginn himself having been born there.
Incidentally, a week or so ago, I visited Mr. Ginn, and I was rather moved to see on old "kist" in his house which had been taken over to Canada by his forbears and brought back again to the West Coast of Scotland by Mr. Ginn, together with sonic blankets which had been woven in that region in the last century, which Mr. Ginn had brought back with him and was using again on the west coast.
Naturally, he felt that he was no incomer, but that he was returning to his home again when he obtained a croft in that region in 1957. After all, this was one of the objects of the Crofters Commission being set up—to try to encourage people to go to live again in these depopulated areas. In August, 1957, he applied for a grant to enable him to build a steading and make improvements to the house and the craft. In the spring of 1958, after much correspondence, he again applied to the De

partment of Agriculture, which was administering this matter, and was told that the delay in reaching a decision was due to a reorganisation which was taking place in the region, which of course is one of the objects of the Crofters Commission being set up. He was told that this scheme was being discussed for the Strath area and that the matter was being discussed between the Crofters Commission and the Department of Agriculture.
He wrote to me for the first time in July, 1958, since when I have been corresponding with the Scottish Office and the Crofters Commission, with very little effect. In the same month I was told by the Commission that Mr. Ginn was assigned the tenancy of this croft — and this is important—on 24th June, 1957, the Commission granting its consent under Section 8 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, and that Mr. Ginn had applied to the Department of Agriculture for grant assistance as the Building Grants and Loans Scheme was administered by the Department of Agriculture.
In August, 1958, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the noble Lord who is to reply this evening, acknowledged that the Secretary of State was empowered under Section 22 (2) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, to give assistance by way of grant and loan to crofters for the erection or improvement of buildings and steadings such as Mr. Ginn was seeking.
Here I should like to quote a letter which I received from the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Having pointed out that the Secretary of State had the power, he said:
The Taylor Commission, however, recommended that these grants should be made only to bona fide crofters—i.e., crofters making their full-time livelihood from crofting or partly from crafting and partly from one of the recognised ancillary occupations to crofting. As Mr. Ginn is employed at Auchtercairn school, Garloch, and his interest in crofting is incidental to his main occupation, it was considered that in the light of the Taylor Commission's recommendations it would not he justifiable to offer assistance to him.
Ever since then I have been arguing this point with the Joint Under-Secretary of State. In a subsequent letter the Joint Under-Secretary stated that Mr. Ginn was not a bona fide crofter. I consider that he is a bona fide crofter and just as


eligible for a grant as other part-time crofters who are recognised as bona fide crofters. In his letter the Secretary of State quoted the Taylor Commission's Report, paragraph 205. I need not read this paragraph, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State has already used it in his letter to me, but I should like him to look at paragraph 97 of the Taylor Commission's Report which reads:
We recognise in the great majority of cases auxiliary employment will have to be obtained outside the croft …
Anyone who knows crofting conditions fully realises that this is correct. One could put five, six or ten crofts together in poor agricultural land on the West coast and yet not obtain a suitable living purely out of agriculture on that croft.
Paragraph 97 of the Taylor Report also states:
At the present time the main forms of employment, apart from agriculture, are road maintenance, the postal service, afforestation. hydro-electric development…
Many of these indeed provide whole time occupation…
This is the point I want to make. Paragraph 97 continues:
…it is an advantage to the crofting communities to have a variety of employments which provide some diversity in the structure of the community ".
Apart from these arguments, under the Crofters Act a person cannot be given a croft unless he signs an agreement that he will work it agriculturally. Not only has Mr. Ginn guaranteed to do this, but as the science master in the local school where he is teaching, which is a short distance away from his croft, he has started a crofters' club. With models, he is teaching the practical application of crofting, land reclamation and general crofting life. There is a model in his school in which he shows drainage and a model Tank where sheep are collected. He is also anxious to encourage his pupils in the school to come to see the developments that are taking place in his croft.
Could there be any more practical illustration than this of the type of education that we want to encourage in the crofting counties, where pupils are taught the practical things in their own environment? For many years, we have said that too many pupils in these schools are taught to go away; they are taught the academic things and then go away to live

in the South. Here is a man who is willing to give practical education to the pupils and to develop it by showing them what is going on in the croft beside his school. Incidentally, Mr. Ginn has a boy of his own aged 15 who is interested in agriculture.
Mr. Ginn could have bought a house in the locality, because some houses came on to the market, but he was anxious to have a house that had some land with it and to put cattle on it and give his pupils this practical education. He was anxious to remain in the area.
Paragraph 76 of the Annual Report of the Crofters Commission for 1958, just published, points out that
There is general concern at the shortage of men of professional status in certain parts of the Highlands and Islands.
It cites examples in Shetland and in the Western Isles.
Paragraph 77 points out that crofting houses are available and that, naturally, people coming in would have to be willing to work the land properly, as Mr. Ginn is prepared to do. Paragraph 78 states that
The cost of adapting the croft house and, where necessary, repairing the buildings—
which is what Mr. Ginn wants to do—
can be a serious item.
This is a recommendation by the Crofters Commission, set up by the Government. It states:
We deem it to be highly desirable, on all grounds, that such new recruits to crofting should be able to take advantage of all the benefits available for crofters, including building loans and grants under the scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture.
That is what I am demanding Mr. Ginn should get.
The Crofters Commission goes on to say:
We have therefore noted with some concern recent refusals by the Department to authorise assistance in a number of such cases because the persons concerned, being incomers of professional status, were not regarded as bona fide crofters.
Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will agree with me that the Government are defeating their own policy here. Here is not an incomer, as the Under-Secretary has said in his letter to me, but a man with his wife and his family returning virtually from exile to stimulate new life and ideas in the crofting area. This is


the type of man we want to see in these areas.
It is very aggravating that he should not be able to get a grant such as people in other walks of life—postmen, road-men, who are working all day in those jobs—can get. I plead with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary to reconsider this case. If he does not do so, he will not be encouraging people to come back into the Highlands, which was one of the objects—and certainly one of the reasons why I supported the proposal—of setting up the Crofters Commission.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I rise to give a wide measure of support to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod)--my almost territorial neighbour in the North-West. Although our constituencies are separated by quite a number of miles of sea, conditions in the Western Isles are broadly the same as those in the croft lands of West Cromarty. I have been a little alarmed in recent months, not only by the Department's policy but by the Commission's own decisions in certain cases relating to the assignation of crofts and the granting or non-granting of loans and grants for the purpose of building croft houses and steadings.
I will say that, hitherto, the Commission has approached its very difficult problems very intelligently, and with a very sensitive regard to the traditional way of life in the Highlands and Islands, and I am sure that it has been determined not to upset the normal relationships between the crofters and their neighbours. In assigning crofts, for example, it has intruded very little into the arrangements and negotiations between the outgoing tenants and the assignees. As I say, one can only say that the Commission has hitherto acted very intelligently, and nobody has been conscious of undue influence.
There is, of course, a broad public interest in good husbandry, and the suitability of tenants going into crofts. We are all interested in that, but that is provided for in various ways—and not only by the most recent Act of 1955 but in legislation over many years. Good husbandry has always been a question of enforcement, sanctions and, if necessary, of eviction. There is nothing new in that.

crofters have accepted quite a number of restrictions upon their private lives, as it were, as citizens —restrictions that other classes of the agricultural community would simply not have accepted.
For example, the crofter must live on the croft or within two miles of it. One can be a farmer and have a very extensive acreage one can have as many as five, six or even ten farms and not need to live on any one of them, or within two miles of any one of them. One can live on the other side of the Atlantic or be a London stockbroker. The only test for farmers is whether they have the money available for the purchase of the farm, though it may be deplorable that there is not a better test than that.
The crofter is different. Various people can raise objections to the incoming tenant. The landlord can object. The Crofters Commission can say whether or not, in the case of an assignation, it considers the proposed transaction is a bona fide crofting one.
Now we get this curiously contradictory policy about which the hon. Member has been talking tonight. On the one hand we are encouraging people of crofter stock, and others of new blood as well, to go to the Highlands or back to the Highlands to repopulate and bring population into the Highlands. On the other hand, people who are willing to cultivate the land, to guarantee good husbandry and develop the land, to bring in their families to repopulate the villages and to bring in professional and skilled capacity alongside crofting are being turned down or rejected.
We have to be most careful about this. There have been many cases in my constituency recently of what have seemed to me to be highly suitable tenants having proposed assignations rejected by the Crofters Commission and the outgoing tenants being told that "So-and-so is not suitable" and that it is not a bona fide crofting transaction.
In many cases that is all the explanation that is given to the outgoing tenant assigning the croft. At times, the language is highly objectionable. Some of my constituents have had letters to say, "We do not regard this as a bona fide crofting transaction." That appears to smell of all sorts of corruption and curious things going on behind the scenes. I have advised the Commission to be more


careful about its language and I have said that it should send an explanation of what it means in these cases.
At the same time, I have known the Commission and the Department do some very odd things. For example, there has been case after case of the Commission agreeing to an assignation of a croft and then, when the new tenant has been fully accepted and has then asked for a grant and loan, for which he has every right to ask, he has been refused.
Why in the name of goodness does the Commission allow things to go as far as that and then stop the man equipping the croft, at the same time leaving him open to the criticism that he is not practising good husbandry—because one cannot practise good husbandry unless one has properly equipped the croft and lives on it or within two miles of it.
I know of a woman who inherited a second croft, or who had it assigned to her through the death of a relative. She wanted to pass the second croft to her son, but because he was engaged in another occupation in another locality, he was not granted a loan and the assignation was prevented. Such cases run counter to what we expected from the Crofters Commission and in many cases run counter to public policy as expressed very ably by the Commission itself and by various Government spokesmen at different times.
In correspondence, the noble Lord has quoted the Taylor Commission in support of his Department. The Taylor Commission drew attention to the fact that in one area there were a number of people who were prosperous merchants, by local standards, who bought crofts and who got grants and loans which they did not need on any financial means test and who were able to build elaborate establishments and practise good husbandry. That was not prevented and no questions were asked about that.
The Taylor Commission criticised the Crofters Commission for permitting that with these people, whose main livelihood was not crofting and who were very well able to manage without any support from the taxpayer and who were able to assign crofts at a profit even after the Crofters Commission came into being.
There is something very contradictory about that. The Taylor Commission's recommendations are being used against small people, while comfortably off, if not wealthy, people are enabled to get a grant and a loan from the taxpayer and are then able to sell the property, thus making a profit from public assistance.
It is time that the Secretary of State investigated the activities of both the Crofters Commission and his Department in relation to these assignations and the applications which naturally follow upon them for grants and loans for the building of houses and steadings, because the Commission wants to see the crofts equipped in the interests of good husbandry and good citizenship. I have no doubt that the time has come for an inquiry and that is why I support the hon. Member and hope that we shall have a full inquiry into this case as one among many which demand an investigation, by the Government if necessary.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): It is perfectly true that until the Crofters Building Grants (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, brought into effect the revised provisions of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, building grants and loans were given in many cases to persons of professional and business status whose interest in crofting could not be said to be other than incidental and marginal. There is no doubt that, whatever the incidental factors involved in such cases, the essential interest in the croft was one of housing rather than of crofting agriculture.
The conclusion of the Taylor Commission, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) mentioned, when it came to consider the situation was unequivocal on this point. In paragraph 205 of its Report the Taylor Commission said:
It is possible for the holders of these plots, with the aid of grants or loans from the Department of Agriculture to build a house costing £1,500-£2,000 "—
for which there would be a grant of up to £650—
and to live there rate free, grazing one or two sheep, and to carry on their business in Stornoway.
That is an example of the sort of thing which, in fairness to the taxpayer and to


the bona fide crofter, should be considered.
In reaching its conclusions, the Taylor Commission had in mind the exclusion of the type of person whose primary occupational interest clearly lay outside crafting—

Mr. John MacLeod: Not according to paragraph 97.
Lord John Hope: That does not conflict with paragraph 205. Paragraph 97 talks about auxiliary employment to be obtained by the crofters outside crofting. That is the essential difference between the two.
It is in the light of that clear recommendation of the Taylor Commission and the principle it establishes that, with the passing of the Crofters (Scotland) Act and the 1956 Building Grants Regulations, applications from these people of professional or business status have been considered. Of course, there cannot always be very sharp, well-defined dividing lines because the types of case presenting themselves are naturally varied, but I want to give my hon. Friend an assurance that, in the consideration of these applications, if there are any circumstances which would indicate a bona fide crofting interest, even though limited, we try very hard to swing the thing in favour of the applicant.
My hon. Friend mentioned certain other forms of ancillary employment which are referred to in the Report. I want to point out to him that the essential difference between those means of livelihood which are either part-time or liable to fluctuate is that they are in quite a different category from the vocation pursued by his constituent, Mr. Ginn, who is a schoolmaster. My hon. Friend pleaded the case of Mr. Ginn with great force and eloquence. Of course, one would like very much to help in these cases, but I must make absolutely clear that Mr. Ginn, who is a regular schoolmaster, could not be classed in the circumstances as a bona fide crofter and be entitled to a house on these very, very preferential terms given by the Government.
I am saying nothing at all against Mr. Ginn, whose story my hon. Friend has told us. He has settled there and I have

no doubt he is a great influence for good in the community. He is a full-time teacher, but the fact is that there is that dividing line between Mr. Ginn's occupation and what he is doing as a sideline as a crofter. Suppose at any time he were to leave the area—he may not, but suppose he did—and accepted appointment as a teacher, with perhaps a better job somewhere else. Then his landlord would be liable to pay compensation as he would be if an ordinary crofter were going. That is a consideration which in fairness we have to take into account.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: How does the noble Lord reconcile that with the action of the Crofters Commission in permitting people who have built, with the aid of a grant and loan, to assign the croft at a profit?
Lord John Hope: Naturally, I should need to have specific cases to argue that with the hon. Member, but in the context of the assignation of crofts, Mr. Ginn, of course, and anybody else in that position can claim and obtain, as no doubt he does, grants for the purely agricultural side of what he is doing. He is not debarred from the help which crofters get qua crofting. It is in connection with the housing difficulty that it has been decided that Mr. Ginn has not a case—

Mr. John MacLeod: He has to live somewhere.

Lord John Hope: Of course he has to live somewhere, but we have to bear in mind the crofters who want crofts and who intend to make crofting their occupation. Whatever the Commission may say, it would be a pity if we got into a state where somebody who wanted to do crofting was being debarred from obtaining a croft because somebody who was not a crofter was doing it in his spare time. It is not easy—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.